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

Background Information

Right of Election:

in the freemen

Estimated number qualified to vote:

3,500, rising to 5,3501

Number of voters:

4,435 in November 18302


118,972 (1821); 165,175 (1831)


15 Mar. 1820GEORGE CANNING1635
 Peter Crompton345
 Thomas Leyland125
15 Feb. 1823WILLIAM HUSKISSON vice Canning, appointed to office236
 William Molyneux, Visct. Molyneux31
 Peter Cromptonnil
 John Bolton21
 Frederick Gascoyne13
 John Wright3
 George Williams2
5 Feb. 1828HUSKISSON re-elected after appointment to office 
2 Aug. 1830ISAAC GASCOYNE191
 George Williams83
30 Nov. 1830WILLIAM EWART vice Huskisson, deceased2186
 John Evelyn Denison2149
  Election declared void, 23 Mar. 1831 
  No writ issued before the dissolution 
4 May 1831WILLIAM EWART1919
 John Evelyn Denison1890
 Isaac Gascoyne607
 William Rathbonenil
21 Oct. 1831DUDLEY RYDER, Visct. Sandon  vice Denison, chose to sit for Nottinghamshire1519
 Thomas Thornely670

Main Article

Successive waves of industrial and commercial expansion, associated with West Indian slavery and the development of the corporation-owned docks, which sustained international, Irish and coastal trades, had made Liverpool, on the eastern shore of the Mersey, the premier entrepôt and canal terminus of the North-West, the second largest town and port in the country and an important cultural centre.3 Despite a general acquiescence since 1761 in the return of one ‘corporation’ and one ‘independent’ Member, elections were habitually contested and their venality extended to municipal polls, which had been revived in the wake of the 1791 Whig-orchestrated campaign for open common halls.4 The merchants at their Exchange and a partisan local press subjected Members and candidates to close scrutiny and judged them according to their ability to promote trade, influence government and distribute patronage. National and local issues were discussed at the Athenaeum (a library, cross-party gentlemans’ club and inn) and debated on the hustings, and a ‘great man from outside’, beholden to but aloof from Liverpool electoral corruption, was preferred. The mutually jealous and politically ambitious businessmen who dominated the local parties rarely became more than nominal candidates (serving to provide additional booths or prolong polling) and had to seek seats elsewhere: for example Ralph Benson at Stafford; Joseph Birch at Nottingham; William Ewart initially at Bletchingley, John Gladstone at Woodstock and Berwick-upon-Tweed and his son Thomas at Queenborough.5 The aristocrats asked to field and ‘countenance’ candidates and co-operate on local legislation included the lord lieutenant, the 12th earl of Derby of Knowsley, a Whig moderate; the developer of North Toxteth, the 2nd earl of Sefton* of Croxteth Hall, who aligned with the ‘Mountain’; the Canningite marquess of Stafford, and, from 1824, when his wife inherited the Gascoyne estates, the Tory 2nd marquess of Salisbury.6

Power was vested locally in the mayor and two bailiffs (the returning officers), elected annually on 18 Oct. by the freemen (eight to ten per cent of the adult male population), whose main privilege was exemption from town (port) dues, and a self-elected common council of 40. The latter, a closely interrelated and predominantly Tory body, included members of Liverpool’s three long-established political groups: the Blue or Townside party of the Tory Foster, Case and Aspinall families; the Greens, headed hitherto by the Drinkwater, Hollinshead and Bourne families, whose Whiggism was in abeyance; and the Pink or reforming faction, led by the Croppers, Curries, Earles and Lawrences, whose sympathies were Whig, Nonconformist and Quaker.7 Freeman enrolments, of which there were 2,211 between January 1820 and December 1831, peaked in anticipation of a poll (1820, 172; 1821, 102; 1826, 113; 1827, 675; 1830, 861), with the overwhelming majority qualifying by birth or servitude. Long delays prior to admission and before being sworn in were commonplace, but the 1830-3 parliamentary inquiries into electoral corruption in Liverpool found ‘no evidence of batch creations for political purposes’. The bribery oaths were rarely administered.8

In the contest of 1812, the anti-Catholic Isaac Gascoyne, the Townside and corporation Member since 1796, and the pro-Catholic Canning, newly proposed by a coalition of disaffected Greens and wealthy ship owners excluded from the corporation led by the Tory John Bolton of Storrs, Westmorland, and the ‘quondam Whig’ John Gladstone, had defeated the Whigs Henry Brougham* and Thomas Creevey*. This split the independent party and heralded changes in the organization of Liverpool politics, which initially favoured the Reds or Canningites. Resident Red freemen were managed at and between elections through the Backbone Club and the Canning Club established in 1812 by Gladstone and the brewer James Ackers of Knotty Ash, while a separate dining club, the Canning Cycle, catered for their organizing elite. The Blues operated through the Pitt Club (1814) and the True Blue Club (1818), founded by the struggling banker James Aspinall in the corporation and Gascoyne interests. The Concentric Society (1812) and the Independent Debating Society (1813) provided a forum for the Whig Dissenters, and the pro-reform, pro-emancipation Liverpool Freemen’s Club (1812), managed by the auctioneer Thomas Green, rallied the Pink and Green ‘foes of corruption’.9 Additionally, in December 1812 Liverpool had become the first and remained the only constituency with a permanent Parliament office in Westminster for the transmission of business between lobbyists, Members and ministers. Situated in Fludyer Street and headed by Canning’s private secretary John Backhouse, whom William Wainwright (acting mainly for Huskisson and Sandon) replaced in September 1823, it was funded by the corporation (whose annual revenues increased from £559 in 1704 to £55,000 in 1829) and mercantile associations representing the ship owners, the underwriters, the salt manufacturers and the American, Irish, East Indian, West Indian, Portuguese, Brazilian, Mexican and South American trades. Despite its apparent success, it was regularly bypassed by the corporation and the commercial men who employed London agents. The Whigs and radicals generally chose to forward petitions directly to their partisans and other locally connected Members.10 The Commons alone received over 825 Liverpool petitions, 1775-1835, with rapid growth evident from 1816 in those concerning civic and cultural improvements and law and order.11

Failure to unseat Canning, following his appointment as president of the India board in Lord Liverpool’s administration in 1816 and at the 1818 election, had made Gascoyne the more vulnerable to an anticipated challenge by Sefton or his son Lord Molyneux† at the general election of 1820.12 However, the Tory Africa and West India merchant John Tobin had defeated the Whig banker and unsuccessful 1816 parliamentary candidate Thomas Leyland (d. 1827) in the 1819 mayoral poll. Whig influence was further undermined by differences between their merchant elite, who endorsed Canning’s liberal Toryism, and their partisans among the artisans and tradesmen, who had approved the 1819 Liverpool Orangemen’s procession, William Cobbett’s† visit and the populist Peterloo and reform meetings addressed by the Concentric Club leaders, the Unitarian minister and schoolmaster Dr. William Shepherd of Gatacre (nicknamed ‘Sincerity’), the radical physician Dr. Peter Crompton, the militia colonel George Williams†, and the former fustian manufacturer and sugar refiner Ottiwell Wood of Edge Hill and his sons.13

Gascoyne commenced his personal canvass directly George IV was proclaimed with trade processions and civic splendour, 12 Feb. 1820. Canning’s candidature was confirmed that day, and his supporters secured a 900-signature requisition and subscription for his return, 18 Feb.14 The Pink and Greens met on 29 Feb. to arrange funding, but lacked a suitable candidate.15 Sefton, whose plea for moderation at the Peterloo meeting of 29 Sept. 1819 had been rebuffed, refused to put Molyneux forward, their putative kinsman, Liverpool-born Creevey, stayed away and Benson and Daniel Sykes* declined. Crompton, as the radical saviour of Liverpool from electoral corruption, and Leyland, whose firm shared the corporation’s banking business with Arthur Heywood and Sons, were requisitioned by default:16 according to the Manchester Mercury, Leyland ‘acted towards the freemen as a coy maid acts towards her lover - half refusing, half consenting’.17 The radical canvassing notices of Watkin Llewellyn Jones of Bampton House, Glamorgan, and Constantine Wyvill of Bletchington Park, Yorkshire, were treated as squibs, about a hundred of which survive: some denounced Canning for serving in the same ministry as his former adversary, the home secretary Lord Sidmouth, and supporting repression after Peterloo; others accused Gascoyne of selling patronage and ridiculed the appearance, harangues and pretensions of the radicals; one urged reconciliation between George IV and his Queen Caroline, Canning’s former paramour. The clubs and inns opened daily and freemen were admitted and enrolled, 28, 29 Feb., 7 Mar.18 That evening Egerton Smith, editor of the Liverpool Mercury, and Ottiwell Wood’s son John Wood*, a key Crompton supporter, addressed the self-styled ‘friends of freedom’ at the Tennis Court in Gradwell Street and marched them to the tallyroom in Water Street, accompanied by colours and a band of music.19

On the hustings, 8 Mar., Canning was nominated by Bolton, whose Duke Street mansion served as his election headquarters (his nickname as a militia colonel, ‘Rub-a-Dub-Fire Away’, proved popular with squib writers). The broker Henry Blundell Hollinshead seconded. Aspinall and his elder brother Bamber Gascoyne’s local agent John Shaw Leigh, the secretary of the True Blue Club, nominated Gascoyne. Crompton’s proposers were Williams (whom he afterwards nominated for the county) and the broker Robert Ellison Harvey; while Leyland’s were the hatter and treasurer of the Pink and Greens John Harvey and the stationer and future barrister Edward ‘Roaring’ Rushton.20 The Canning Club dismissed the contest as a ‘sham fight’.21 Creevey was informed on 14 Mar. by the Whig Lord Folkestone*, who held him personally responsible for their local party’s poor showing, that it proceeded ‘rummishly’.22 The sitting Members were consistently and unassailably ahead and the radical Whigs used the seven-day poll to publicize their campaign for reform, inquiry into Peterloo and lower taxes, and to denounce the Liverpool government’s repressive Six Acts, the corporation and ‘all corruption’. Canning, inconvenienced by a heavy cold, led throughout. On the hustings, he exploited the contrast between the rotund Crompton and the gaunt and haggard Williams, defended government, and hinted that the further relaxation of the India trade which the merchants sought might be granted. Gascoyne concentrated on denying allegations of jobbing, and Leyland stayed away. Rushton conceded defeat on behalf of him and Crompton, 15 Mar., and a notice that day from the committees of the Pink and Green interests thanked their supporters for taking the election into a second week and making ‘a glorious stand ... against the dictation and domineering influence of a self-elected junta, who are desirous to thrust upon the freemen two representatives’.23 Reports of a plot to murder Canning at the chairing next day were taken seriously, but both it and his supporters’ dinner at the Music Hall on the 18th passed peacefully.24 Canning afterwards described his Liverpool ‘campaign’ to his wife as quieter and

perhaps more brilliant than any former, though I was heartily tired of it, before it was over, and am heartily sick of the thing. But I must do the Liverpuddlians justice. They are reasonable enough ... I am assured indeed that they would return me again [in the event of a by-election] without a campaign, and quite willing and without a difficulty if I would send Willy to represent me. This is certainly a point gained.25

According to John Gore, the printer of the Liverpool Advertiser’s analysis of the pollbook, 2,032 (94 per cent) of the 2,162 voters were residents. Overall, 679 (31 per cent) plumped (Canning 319, Gascoyne 182, Crompton 140, Leyland 38); and the 1,483 (69 per cent) who split their votes gave Gascoyne 1,350, Canning 1,316, Crompton 205 and Leyland 87 (88, 80, 59 and 70 per cent of their respective totals). Of 130 non-residents polled, mostly from nearby Lancashire, Cheshire and Wrexham, 98 (75 per cent) voted Canning-Gascoyne, mainly (79) from Gascoyne’s booth; a further 12 plumped for Gascoyne and nine for Canning. As the absent Gladstone crossly remarked, Gore’s statistics confirmed the importance of the corporation-Canningite coalition, which their party leaders publicly denied.26 Printing errors in the poll book, which gives votes for 2,173 freemen and misattributes most of Leyland’s votes, inhibits independent analysis. Resident Red and Blue voters received the usual 6s. in lieu of wages. Accounts published by the Pink and Greens put their expenditure at only £214 14s. 6d.27

Early in the new Parliament, government sanctioned the passage of the 1820 bonded rums bill, indemnifying Ewart, Rutson and Company, one of the businesses of William Ewart (d. 1823) of Mossley Hill, who contributed some £3,500 towards Canning’s election, from liability for duty on stock destroyed in a warehouse blaze.28 Ewart’s influence (Canning considered him ‘unquestionably the most powerful man in Liverpool’) was insufficient to secure repeal of the tariff on imported wool, but Canning, the presenter on 9 Apr. 1821 of a relevant petition got up by him, promised to ‘at least abstain from voting [with government] against ... [its] prayer’.29 Canning delegated to Gascoyne the presentation of contentious petitions against commercial restrictions, 30 May (Liverpool’s contribution to the City of London’s campaign), and for concessions for the North American timber trade, 2, 5 June 1820, and undertook little constituency business pending the resolution of the Queen’s case - the cause of his repeated absences abroad and resignation from government in December 1820.30 Improvement bills (for lighting and street widening) sponsored by the corporation received royal assent, 22, 30 June 1820; and they petitioned for the Dublin harbour bill, 1 May, and endorsed its Liverpool promoters’ petition for Telford’s Conway suspension bridge, 28 June.31 The Whig merchants and radicals petitioned for civil list reductions, 12 May, and against the corn laws and all trade restrictions, 17 Oct. The latter had been adopted on 24 May at a meeting convened by Tobin, who had been knighted as the presenter of Liverpool’s loyal address.32 The queen’s birthday, 17 May 1820, was popularly celebrated, and 30,000 signed an address to her, adopted on 15 Aug. at a public meeting chaired by Williams. He led further mass demonstrations of support for her following the abandonment of the bill of pains and penalties in November, when the Whig magnates Birch, Benjamin Arthur Heywood (lampooned by the Tories as ‘keeper of the privy seal’), the merchants William Rathbone, Thomas Booth and Joseph Sandars, and the broker John Ashton Yates joined in the celebrations, which were toned down to avoid unrest.33 Leyland, the victor by 124-107 in the 1820 mayoral election, convened a meeting at the town hall to address the king, 27 Dec. 1820, but it ended in tumult, before Booth’s radical resolution criticizing the conduct and unconstitutional policies of government could be seconded. Leyland rejected a second requisition and the petition for restoration of the queen’s rights, inquiry into Peterloo, parliamentary reform and lower taxes, was adopted at a mass meeting chaired by Booth, 10 Jan., and presented and endorsed by Sefton and Creevey, 2 Feb. 1821.34 An extensively signed loyal counter-address was quietly organized by Gladstone at ministers’ request.35 Its presenter Birch refused to endorse the merchants’ radical petition for repeal of the Six Acts, inquiry into Peterloo and currency change, 19 Mar. Leading ‘Concentrics’ petitioned for criminal law reform, 4 May, and in protest at the treatment of radical prisoners in Lancaster gaol, 21 May, 6 June 1821, and of Henry Hunt* at Ilchester, 2 Apr. 1822.36 The Associations reinforced their submissions to the board of trade and testimony before select committees in 1821 and 1822 with petitions for trade deregulation, 6, 19, 29 Mar., 7 May 1821.37 They petitioned also for concessions favouring the North American timber trade, 20, 21 Feb.; Canadian grain imports, 28 Mar. 1821; the release of bonded corn for milling, 4 Mar., 21 May 1822; reduction and equalization of the duties on East and West Indian sugars, 28 Mar., 31 May 1822; repeal of the salt duties, 1 Apr., and recognition of the independent South American republics, 23 July, 5 Aug., without which, an editorial in The Times on 6 Aug. 1822 observed, Liverpool’s expanding Colombian trade was unprotected in law.38 Legislation for a new church (St. Luke’s) was enacted, 15 May 1822.39 The corporation sponsored bills for a new fish market, paving and harbour improvements and the transfer of the assizes to Liverpool failed, and the 1822 waterworks bill, extending the provisions of the 1785 Act to Toxteth Park and West Derby, was strenuously opposed by the corporation, the select vestry and the inhabitants before it received royal assent, 24 June 1822.40 The cost of the distressed Irish, 12,783 of whom, according to the pass master Robert Chambers, were returned to Ireland on passes issued at Liverpool between June 1818 and June 1820, remained an important local issue.41 Anticipating Canning’s departure for India as governor-general, lobbying against the East India Company’s trade monopoly also revived in 1822.42

From June 1821, the Liverpool Mercury orchestrated a campaign to oust Canning should he seek re-election on returning to office.43 Shepherd mustered support at the Cheshire Whig Club during the hotly contested 1821 mayoral election, when their candidate, Leyland’s nephew and heir Richard Bullin, defeated the Canning Cycle’s nominee, the merchant William Molyneux (1,619-1,567) in a four-day poll that cost each side over £3,000.44 The number polled was 310 greater than at any parliamentary election and included 200 non-residents, ‘a circumstance without a parallel’ which the Tory press attributed to ‘the admission of such persons as are considered paupers, and who are not, by law, permitted to vote at elections for Members of Parliament, as well as by officers employed in the customs and excise, forming altogether an aggregate of 3186’.45 ‘Junta domination’, open tendering for corporation contracts and Ewart and Moss’s monopoly of government remittances (and the 15-days’ interest accruing thereto) were the main issues. Canning cautioned ministers that any transfer of government business to Leyland and Bullin would result in the forfeiture of his seat to the Whigs or radicals.46 (In October 1823, before Ewart and Moss’s contract was confirmed following William Ewart’s death, Huskisson issued a similar warning.)47 Dismayed, as Gladstone had surmised they would be, by Bullin’s recourse to bribery, his refusal to ‘open up the corporation’ and the Cycle’s continued strength, the Concentric Society rallied in support of Joseph Hume*, 25 Jan. 1822. With Edward Bootle Wilbraham* of Lathom also manoeuvring, speculation concerning the anticipated vacancy was rife.48 Ewart informed Canning privately that he would feel ‘cold shouldered’ if Bolton was proposed; but he was prepared to back Gladstone, who, replying ‘in strict confidence’ to his offer, speculated, 2 Mar. 1822:

All our party would be united against Lord M[olyneux], whilst probably a portion of the moderate Whigs would either support or not oppose me. If Mr. Bolton and you think it right to go forward, I think it would be very desirable for you to ascertain the sentiments or opinions of such men as James Cropper, Thomas Booth, Mr. [Arthur] Heywood, Thomas Fletcher, Ashton Yates, Charles Lawrence, S. Richards, Benjamin Heywood*, Joseph Sandars, Thomas Francis, William Earle sen. and jun. and a few more of that description. It would also be of consequence to feel the pulse of some of General Gascoyne’s friends, also Joseph Leigh, etc. ... [Jonathan] Blundell Hollinshead, etc. ... Then there is another class such as Ackers, Stewart, Kaye, Radcliffe, Dempsey, Haigh ... The object I think is not so much for opinions as to the probability of success or otherwise, but whether they will give the thing a fair trial by attending a public meeting when called and agree to follow it up, if there should then appear good grounds for doing so, but on no account otherwise. As to Sir Wm. B[arton], and Sir J[ohn] T[obin], they are both much connected with Leyland, therefore you and Mr. Bolton can better judge whether any thing and what ought to be said to them ... Irlam, I should think, would wish me well, though he would naturally take Sir Wm.’s course ... I dare say my brothers or partners, or both, would willingly assist, but I much doubt the prudence of permitting them in this stage. This leads me to speak of the expense. If it is expected that I should pay money, I must at once decline being a candidate, if I cannot be returned as Members for Liverpool have always been. I will not be an exception. My family I dare say would subscribe liberally, their means considered, perhaps among them £1,000 or £1,200 ... As to myself, I must vacate my present seat before I can go to a poll. To obtain another elsewhere in case of defeat at Liverpool would unavoidably be attended with a large expense, besides, locally connected as I am with the town, my annual expenditure as their Member would unavoidably be of some moment. For I think I should, in that case, adopt a different course from any that have gone before ... Hitherto Liverpool has followed a course different from all other great commercial towns: London, Bristol, Glasgow, Newcastle, etc. select their representatives from their own community - if a change is thought desirable, there is ample precedent to justify it. Be that as it may, the time is now come when a decision must be made one way or the other.49

After sounding opinion in London, Bath and Liverpool, Ewart concluded that Gladstone’s ‘free of charge’ stipulation, the hostility of Gascoyne’s supporters and the loss of spontaneity caused by the deferral (until July 1822) of Canning’s appointment augured against the attempt.50

Canning, as he had intended since 1814, pressed the candidature of his financial coadjutor Huskisson, but his faltering bid for ministerial promotion raised the spectre of a second by-election that Parliament, which the Liverpool merchants refused to finance. To gain time, Canning stifled a requisition to Huskisson in June 1822 and informed the prime minister that he would not vacate until the last possible moment, so obviating the need for a writ before 1823.51 Few took talk of Canning’s departure seriously following the suicide on 12 Aug. 1822 of the foreign secretary and leader of the House, Lord Londonderry, and his speeches at ‘farewell’ dinners chaired by Gladstone, 23 Aug., and Henry Blundell Hollinshead, 30 Aug., when he praised the commercial associations and spoke of his regret at local differences on the Catholic question and reform, contributed to his successful bid to succeed Londonderry to both offices.52 Notified with Bolton and Jonathan Blundell Hollinshead in September, that Canning wanted an alternative seat in view of his increased workload, Gladstone tested the ground in vain before signalling his acquiescence, 8 Oct., whereupon Huskisson’s succession was virtually guaranteed.53 On 20 Sept. Derby’s grandson Edward George Geoffrey Smith Stanley* wrote to Lord Lansdowne of his relief at not being proposed by the Whigs.54 The Cycle’s refusal to underwrite a second by-election remained a ploy in Huskisson’s negotiations for promotion, which culminated in his appointment as president of the board of trade in January 1823 and agreement to vacate Chichester. Canning had vainly touted him for the cabinet as chancellor of the duchy of Lancaster, whose patronage ‘tells directly upon Liverpool’.55 The Cycle ‘adopted’ Huskisson, 22 Jan. 1823, publicized Canning’s resignation next day and persuaded ‘the dozen or so Whigs normally active at elections’ to discourage alternative candidates. Gladstone’s decision to ‘abandon for yourself what you are able to confer upon another’ surprised the disgruntled vice-president of the board of trade Thomas Wallace I* and others unfamiliar with Liverpool politics. He, however, warned Huskisson that the niceties of electioneering could not be dispensed with despite his close association with Canning and the prospect of only a vexatious opposition.56 On 5 Feb. the Canning Club secretary directed Huskisson to

arrive privately at Mr. Bolton’s on Monday [10 Feb.] between 12 and one, so as to make a few calls and then go to the Exchange; after dinner to visit the Canning and two or three other principal clubs; on Tuesday to make more calls (bring plenty of cards with you) and visit more of the principal clubs in the evening; on Wednesday morning a procession from Mr. Bolton’s to the hustings.57

With a two-day postponement, the arrangements were broadly adhered to. Shepherd had no cause to execute his threat to ‘bring out Leyland’ should ‘the Lascar’ [Gladstone] stand and, as agreed at the Concentric Club’s tenth (and last) anniversary dinner, 23 Dec. 1822, the Liverpool Mercury promoted and the radical Whigs nominated Molyneux, who was staying nearby, in absentia, holding Crompton, whose invitation to Colonel Jones was rejected, in reserve. The town was placarded with scurrilous bills ‘signed’ by ‘Canning’s old antagonists’ Harvey, Shepherd and Williams, which capitalized on Huskisson’s unusual French upbringing and brief involvement with the Jacobin ‘Club de 1789’ by erroneously pronouncing him disqualified from standing as an alien, a bastard and a placeman.58 Backhouse informed Canning, 14 Feb., that Huskisson, whom Bolton and Henry Blundell Hollingshead sponsored

spoke admirably, delighted and surprised his friends, and won the admiration and good will of his opponents. His speech [a refutation of the placarded allegations and defence of Canning’s foreign policy] will be of the greatest use to him here, and will not be useless to him ... in London. Crompton was tedious and ridiculous; Rushton, who proposed Lord Molyneux, clever and fair. Williams did not dare to come. Shepherd pleaded gout as his excuse for not attending.59

The Whig merchants complained privately that Huskisson’s advocacy of liberal commercial policies would destroy their party locally. They failed to rally to Molyneux, although Sefton (an arch opponent with Lords Derby, Stafford and Wilton of the proposed Liverpool-Manchester railway) had approved his candidature. The election, ‘which for shortness of duration and good humour is unparalleled in the records of Liverpool politics’ (Backhouse), terminated after a nominal two-day poll, described by the Liverpool Mercury as a protest ‘on public grounds, by half a dozen spirited men’.60 In October 1823 Gladstone, who was rewarded 12 months later with a civic dinner and gift of plate, facilitated the election of a Whig mayor, Charles Lawrence of Wavertree Hall, with the merchant William Earle junior and the surgeon William Wallace Currie as bailiffs.61 They rejected a 778-signature requisition for a common hall, but initiated the inquiries which exposed the Foster family’s mismanagement of the docks, so forcing concessions on open tendering and encouraging further commercial speculation, including the reclamation of shore land at Wallasey Pool and the construction of the Brunswick, Clarence, Waterloo, Trafalgar and Victoria Docks, authorized by seven additional dockyard and improvement bills passed between 1825 and 1830.62

The Molyneux estate bill received royal assent, 2 May, and the 1823 merchant vessels apprentices’ bill (4 Geo. IV, c. 25) and reform of the law of principal and factor (4 Geo. IV, c. 83) were ostensibly enacted at the behest of Liverpool mercantile interests, supported by Bristol, Dublin and London.63 The ship owners initially opposed the relaxation of the navigation laws under Huskisson’s Reciprocity Duties Act (4 Geo. IV, c. 77), but he and the United States envoy Richard Rich were fêted as guests of honour at a civic dinner for Canning, 25 Aug. 1823.64 Both Members supported bills that Parliament to safeguard coastal shipping, the Irish mail, the Isle of Man trade and to increase church, burial ground and gas light provision, including Tobin’s scheme for generating gas from palm oil. The mayor, burgesses and inhabitants petitioned the Lords against the rival coal gas scheme, 17 May 1824.65 The corporation countered Derby’s opposition to transferring the assizes to Liverpool by seeking support from Manchester and Preston, petitioning in protest at the landed interest’s domination of the grand jury, 12 June 1823, and opposing the 1824 county courts bill (17 Mar., 8 Apr.) and the Lancaster judges’ lodging bill (1 Apr.), which Gascoyne, acting on their direction, failed (by 41-24) to kill, 2 Apr. 1824. The previous day, the Members had failed to prevent John Christian Curwen carrying a motion censuring the recorder James Clarke, as absentee attorney-general of the Isle of Man.66 Pressure from the canal owning aristocracy, the promoters of the rival Leeds-Liverpool scheme and hostile property owners along the route, including the corporation, initially deterred the Members from committing support for Creevey’s ‘devil of a railway’, the Liverpool-Manchester, although the Associations and the Drogheda, Dublin and Manchester chambers of commerce were united in backing it. The 1825 bill, on which Huskisson declined to testify before the select committee, foundered in the Lords.67 Aristocratic opposition to the revived bill was mitigated by Liverpool’s support for the 1825 Weaver navigation and the 1826 Birmingham-Liverpool canal bills, and also by Stafford’s acquiescence (secured by his factor James Loch*) and a favourable Lords’ majority engineered by Huskisson and William Holmes; it became law, 5 May 1826. The abortive 1826 Liverpool-Birmingham railway bill attracted no Liverpool petitions.68

Petitions for remission of the window tax on warehouses and business premises (1823, 1825, 1830) and lower cotton duties were invariably bipartisan.69 The corporation petitioned and memorialized ministers annually, 1823-5, with mercantile backing for repeal of the Insolvent Debtors Act (as against the 1827 arrest upon mesne proceedings bill).70 The brokers and manufacturers petitioned the Commons for lower duties or a drawback on tobacco, 28 June 1820, 20 Feb. 1824, 22 Feb. 1825, for and against repealing the leather tax, 23 Feb. 1824, and the usury laws, 8 Mar. 1826, and for changes in the laws governing co-partnership and ejectment, 8 Mar. 1826 (and again, 2 Apr. 1828).71 Liverpool anti-slavery meetings and petitions (presented 15 May 1823, 19 May 1826, 9 June 1828) were inspired by Cropper, who in December 1822, backed by Alderman Thomas Case, Currie, the Quaker merchants Isaac Hadwen, Adam and Isaac Hodgson, Samuel Hope, William Rathbone and the 1806-7 Member William Roscoe, for whom a subscription was raised in 1820 after his business failed, founded the Liverpool Association for the Gradual Amelioration of Slavery as the precursor of the London Association.72 There was a consensus in favour of Canning’s 1823 resolutions and Liverpool abolitionists were ready signatories to the merchants’ annual petitions for equal taxation of East and West Indian sugars, in which, differing from its West India counterpart, the East India Association was reluctant to become involved. However, the scale of Nonconformist support and petitions for inquiry into the case of the indicted Demerara Methodist missionary John Smith fuelled a bitter newspaper war and exposed the Members to the intrigues of the Demerara planters, in which the Gladstones, as major estate and slave owners, were implicated.73 The West India merchants petitioned for compensation and indemnity from prosecution in the event of abolition, 19 May 1826.74 Leading Canningites addressed rallies convened by the Pink and Greens in support of liberal Spain, 13 Aug. 1823, and the Greek uprising, 14 Feb. 1824. An amendment carried by the merchant Cyrus Morrall at their 5 June 1824 meeting ensured that Liverpool’s address for diplomatic recognition of the independent South American Republics was bipartisan and specifically endorsed Huskisson’s commercial policy, then popularly denigrated on account of his mismanagement of the repeal of the combination laws and the resulting strikes, lockouts and intimidation in the shipyards.75 Gascoyne, as presenter of the disaffected shipwrights’ petitions, 18 Mar. 1824, 3, 4 May 1825, upheld their right to strike and exploited Huskisson’s criticism of them in debate, 21 Feb. 1825, to curry artisan support.76 The Cycle, meanwhile, marked Huskisson’s services to commerce with a subscription dinner in June 1825 and a gift of plate, 14 Feb. 1826, and the Whigs acquiesced in his installation in July 1825 as the founding president of the Liverpool Mechanics’ Institute.77

Despite Liverpool’s large Irish population, Orange Lodges, sectarian schools and local branch of the Catholic Association (established in 1824 and dissolved in February 1829), petitioning on Catholic relief was muted. Its English Catholic hierarchy were uneasy about Irish migration and sectarianism.78 The Lords received petitions for and against it, 16 Apr. 1821, and the Unitarians, Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics sent favourable petitions annually to both Houses from 1825 until emancipation was carried in 1829, when an accident that Shepherd suffered seems to have halted plans for a public meeting and both sides submitted covertly organized 30,000-signature petitions. Gascoyne, a diehard anti-Catholic, opposed a contentious petition from the clergy, 17 Mar., presented hostile ones from the extra-burghal suburbs of West Kirby, 16 Mar., and Everton, 20 Mar., and initiated inflammatory ones presented to the Lords, 2, 10 Apr. 1829.79 Anti-corn law agitation revived, and on 8 Apr. 1825, Jonathan Blundell Hollinshead, as mayor, presided over a meeting convened to carry a revisionist petition similar to that adopted at Manchester on 3 Mar. Its promoters, Case, Currie, Rathbone and Rushton, were thwarted by their fellow merchants Richard Bryans and Samuel Lafone, representing the landowners, millers and tanners, who forced the omission of pivot prices and scales from the resulting petition, which was presented on 26 Apr., with another advocating concessions on milling and abolition of the ‘unfair’ protection accorded to grains routed through Ireland and the Isle of Man.80 Taking charge of the corn importation bill for government, 2 May, Huskisson rejected, as he had warned Blundell Hollinshead he would, the Liverpool importers’ amendment moved by Gascoyne, substituting an 8s. for a 10s. duty on corn released from bond.81 The corporation petitioned against the silk bill, 13 Apr. 1826, and a borough meeting on 1 May, convened by Peter Bourne as mayor, organized a subscription for the distressed Lancashire operatives and called for the corn laws to be repealed to alleviate their plight.82 Notwithstanding the ship owners’ complaints, Liverpool fared better than its neighbours and rivals during the 1825-6 commercial crisis. The Quaker Joseph Hadwen’s bank, which suspended payment on 24 Jan. 1826 with liabilities of £120,000, was the only major casualty; but the bank of booksellers Hugh Ellis Evans and William Eaton Hall also failed and the brokers Duff and Brown were affected.83 As in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, the establishment in 1827 of a Bank of England branch bank was locally resented.84

Both Members sought re-election in 1826 and were requisitioned in May, when reports of opposition were rife.85 Already discredited by a recent botched attempt to redefine his office so that he could relinquish the navy treasurership without financial loss coincidentally with the general election, Huskisson was furious at Gascoyne’s exploitation of their differences on the combination laws, manipulation of the clubs and ‘No Popery’, and he appealed directly to Gladstone to ‘rein in’ his colleague.86 Gladstone and Tobin forced through a vote to fund Huskisson’s re-election at a stormy Canning Club meeting, 1 June, but the shipwrights present, led by William Allen, would have none of it and declared for Alderman John Naylor Wright.87 Over 2,000 attended a meeting chaired by Green and dominated by the Freemen’s Club and Allen’s friends at Mosslake Fields next day, which approved Gascoyne and determined on opposition to Huskisson. Their approaches to the barrister Charles Wye Williams, the local agent of the Dublin Steam Packet Company, and the Manchester cotton spinner Thomas Houldsworth* failed; Hume and the locally connected Whig barrister John Williams* were ruled out on financial grounds; and Jonathan Blundell Hollinshead, Wright, Gascoyne’s elder son Major Ernest Frederick Gascoyne and Colonel Williams became the preferred local candidates.88 The ‘friends of freedom’, infuriated by Gascoyne’s declaration in the House (26 May) that ‘upon no occasion had he been called upon to pay directly or indirectly, a single shilling for his seat’, denounced it as his ‘last joke’. However, John Wood’s (successful) candidature for Preston so preoccupied them that they distanced themselves from the anti-Huskisson Gasconade despite their recent attempts to whip up opposition to the ‘junta’ and press for a parliamentary ruling on the charter as a means of ‘opening up’ the borough. The Liverpool Mercury endorsed the sitting Members.89 Gascoyne deliberately delayed addressing the True Blue Club until 8 June, when, as at the Adelphi hotel the next day, he confined his remarks to his role in carrying the railway bill and local issues. Huskisson, who summoned Robert Wilmot Horton* as ‘second man’ lest serious opposition ensue, was well received at the Exchange, 10 June, and by the clubs and corporation.90 On the 12th, amid what Holmes termed ‘a devil of a row’ on the hustings, where shipwrights and others chanting ‘no combination laws’ assembled in force with ‘no leader and no official candidate’, Allen and the plasterer John Robinson proposed Frederick Gascoyne; John Bourne and the brewer Richard Bullen, Gascoyne; and Bolton and Lawrence, Huskisson. Ralph Benson and Tobin countered Frederick Gascoyne’s nomination by proposing Bolton, and Wright was substituted for young Gascoyne, whom his father pronounced disqualified and forbade to stand, fearing, according to Huskisson, that it would prompt the introduction of Horton or ‘some other real candidate’. Green’s late nominee Molyneux was not seconded, but the name of Williams, another absentee, was entered on the pollbook.91 Huskisson declared against reform and for Catholic relief, and Gascoyne affirmed his opposition to the latter and repudiated allegations of collusion between his agents and the shipwrights. Rushton spoke forcibly in defence of Huskisson, free trade and Catholic relief, criticized Gascoyne’s ‘Ultra Protestant views’ and speech of 26 May and called for reform and corn law repeal. The naval captain Samuel Martin Colquitt of Tranmere, chairman of the 1825 Trafalgar anniversary dinner, defended Gascoyne, and the sitting Members were returned after a two-hour poll.92 Huskisson privately attributed the outcome to the ‘broiling sun, and the general drunken state of the shipwrights’.93 Writing on 24 June to Gladstone at Berwick-upon-Tweed, he highlighted Gascoyne’s effective use of the ‘rabble’ to ‘hide his real weakness’ and concluded that ‘with an efficient candidate ... he could not have stood more than two days’ polling’.94 His failure to appease the ship owners ensured that Huskisson’s criticism of the government’s policy on corn, voiced during a post-election cruise of Liverpool Bay, was exaggerated and widely reported.95

Amendments to recent dockyard, canal, railway and waterworks Acts, introduced with corporation backing in November 1826, were enacted without serious opposition, and both Members supported the 1828 Liverpool blind school bill, to which William Dixon organized opposition in the Lords on behalf of the trustees. Legislation passed that Parliament to safeguard shipping, increase church provision by redrawing parish boundaries and vesting new endowments in the corporation and inhabitants, and to improve communications and commerce with Ireland.96 Petitions for relaxation of the corn laws, adopted at a public meeting chaired by Bolton’s nephew Thomas Littledale as mayor, 15 Nov. 1826, were presented to the Commons by Canning, 8 Mar. 1827; another advocating total repeal, which the meeting rejected, was adopted by the tradesmen and mechanics, 2 Mar., and presented on the 12th.97 Others, from corn mill proprietors and flour manufacturers, urged the Lords to relax the prohibition on flour exports, 26 Feb. 1827.98 Lobbying for concessions on shipping and the China trade intensified when Canning succeeded Lord Liverpool as premier.99 The ship owners’ Association, chaired by Robertson Gladstone, had appointed a deputation in November 1826 to press for protection and make common cause with other ports. With Gascoyne as their Commons spokesman, they tested the new ministry and attempted to force a hostile Huskisson, who remained president of the board of trade, to concede a committee of investigation.100 Their petition advocating it also urged repeal of the timber duties on colonial imports and was presented on 3 May 1827 by Gascoyne, who four days later infuriated the shipwrights by withdrawing his inquiry motion to avoid defeat, after being outdebated by Huskisson.101 A public meeting chaired by John Gladstone, 9 May, adopted an address approving Canning’s ministry. However, supportive speeches by Currie, Henry Booth, Rushton, Shepherd, William Smith of Fullwood Hall, and Williams failed to mask the dissensions evident in Morrall’s abortive amendment backing Peel and Lord Eldon, and Rathbone and Rushton’s attempt to exclude the ‘turncoat’ Gladstone (whom they vilified for undermining Liverpool Whiggism and Huskisson’s policies) from the deputation to present the address.102 Shepherd and Williams meanwhile trumpeted the adhesion to Canning’s ministry of Brougham, who was fêted as ‘Gascoyne’s next opponent’ at a dinner chaired by Francis Jordan, 20 June.103 Following Canning’s death Birch and John Moss were the principal speakers at a dinner at the Royal Institution, 27 Aug. 1827, which resolved to commemorate him with a statue funded by public subscription. Reflecting the preferences of rival factions, the £4,200 raised paid for Chantrey’s marble statue in the town hall and a bronze replica in New Palace Yard, Westminster.104

Negotiations to secure Huskisson’s re-election in the event of a cabinet reshuffle had foundered in May 1827.105 But in September, when his appointment as colonial secretary and leader of the House in Lord Goderich’s coalition ministry made a by-election inevitable, a 1,378-signature requisition and addresses expressing confidence in him as a Canningite leader, Member and minister were immediately forthcoming and Bolton’s covering letter of 6 Oct. urged him ‘not to deem it requisite to attend on the day’.106 Two weeks later, in the most expensive, venal and violent mayoral contest to date, Thomas Colley Porter, backed by the Liverpool Mercury, the ‘middle and lower orders’ and a special committee organized by the Cheshire Whig Club, defeated the Cycle’s nominee, the corn merchant Nicholas Robinson, by 1,780-1,765, in a six-day poll that cost each side £8-10,000. Five-hundred-and-forty freemen were admitted and vote prices ranged from £6-£50 by the fourth day. Management of the docks, local commerce, ‘junta’ domination and proposals for a householder and property-based franchise were the main issues, and both sides co-operated afterwards to prosecute and disfranchise three known perpetrators of bribery.107 Huskisson’s decision to stay on as colonial secretary when the anti-Catholic duke of Wellington replaced Goderich as premier in January 1828 split the Canning party, alienated the Whigs, including Derby and Setfon and their allies, and heightened interest in the Liverpool by-election of 5 Feb.108 Obliged to attend to explain his change of allegiance, Huskisson could count on the continued support of the Albion and his sponsors, Bolton and Gladstone, who, setting aside their mutual mistrust, rallied the Canning Club (at the King’s Arms) with Tobin, 4 Feb.109 Molyneux’s nomination by Shepherd and Henry Preston posed no threat to Huskisson’s unopposed return, although Liverpool was said to be ‘tired’ of him. However, as Brougham had hoped would be the case, reports of the proceedings in the Tory Liverpool Chronicle, the Whig Liverpool Mercury and the London papers damaged the Canningite rump politically by exposing Huskisson’s inability to provide commitments on Catholic relief, corn, shipping and East India policy - the subject of a recent memorial from the East India Association, which his proposers had endorsed and alluded to in their speeches. Newspapers also denounced Huskisson’s pompous defence of commercial policy and the criticism of Goderich he allegedly voiced when challenged on the hustings by Currie and Williams. Both, Huskisson informed Peel, 5 Feb., had ‘received their lessons from town’.110 Hostile motions and questions in both Houses ensued before Huskisson was vindicated by Shepherd’s much-publicized account of proceedings, submitted as evidence during the Commons debates of 11 and 18 Feb. 1828.111 Shepherd, whose timely intervention Wainwright and Huskisson acknowledged, praised the latter for the ‘discretion you used in availing yourself of my letter’.112

The 1828 Liverpool elections bill, which foundered amid hostile petitioning by the freemen, 14 Mar., was a bipartisan attempt to prevent a repetition of the electoral corruption of 1827. Promoted by the corporation and introduced by Gascoyne, 12 Feb., it proposed shortening municipal and parliamentary polls by providing additional booths, introducing a qualifying period between admission and eligibility to vote and measures against impersonation.113 Its failure prompted the Whigs, assisted by Smith Stanley and John Wood, who put the cost of treating at Liverpool since 1806 at £95,350, to petition for a property-based householder franchise; both Members opposed it, 9 June 1828.114 The Unitarians and Protestant Dissenters, who, backed by their allies on the corporation and the Catholics, petitioned both Houses for repeal of the Test Acts in 1827 and 1828, dined at the King’s Arms, 19 June 1828, to celebrate their repeal. Gascoyne voted for it, and Huskisson with the cabinet against it; he was duly denounced by Williams as a placeman.115 Hostile petitioning by certain ship owners, their freeman supporters and Sefton, whose Toxteth Park estate was affected, failed to prevent the passage in 1828 and 1829 of ancillary legislation for the Manchester railway, which Loch, who had been brought in for St. Germans, promoted in Liverpool in August 1828.116 Wellington’s humiliating ‘cashiering’ of Huskisson on the pretext of his hostile East Retford vote of 19 May 1828 precipitated the resignation of the former Canningites from government. Liverpool sympathized with Huskisson but suspended judgement pending Gascoyne’s attack on his commercial policies, couched in a motion for inquiry into the decrease of British seamen, which failed, 17 June.117 Denouncing Gascoyne, in the first of several caustic editorials, the Chronicle commented:

If we were not intimately connected with the machinery by which the General’s election for Liverpool is usually secured, we should express our astonishment that ... [Liverpool] should chose ... a person of the gallant General’s mental dimensions ... Any club of artisans, connected with Liverpool, could furnish a dozen men more capable of sustaining the intellectual character of the town than this, our oldest representative.118

The Tories and the corporation fêted Peel as a possible candidate-in-waiting at the town hall, 7 Oct. 1828.119

On 7 Jan. 1829 the common council rejected (by 25-9) London’s plea for a subscription for Spanish and Italian refugees, and divisions were evident that month on the Wallasey embankment bill, the labourers’ wages bill and petitions against suttee and for colonization and free trade with India and China, adopted in the wake of the Calcutta printer James Silk Buckingham’s† lectures.120 Jealous of the advantages enjoyed by their United States competitors, the corporation and the associations opposed the renewal of the East India Company’s charter: a meeting chaired by Robinson as mayor, 28 Jan., and addressed by merchants of all parties petitioned accordingly with Huskisson as their spokesman, 12 May, 5 June, and appointed a committee, with a £500 budget, to pursue their objective.121 Huskisson exploited the issue during his 12-day August visit, when Robinson, Tobin and the Manchester banker Benjamin Heywood were his hosts and his entourage included Charles Tennyson*, William Ewart, whose return for Bletchingley he had recently effected, George Heneage* and Smith Stanley, who now staked his claim to a county seat.122 Beforehand, Huskisson had observed ‘coolness’ in Bolton, jealousy in Gladstone and Gascoyne’s exploitation of Catholic emancipation ‘to strengthen himself’.123 An editorial in the Albion, 24 Aug., acknowledged local divisions and dismissed the visit as a ‘mere tête à tête’ between Huskisson and his election committee, ‘the scattered elements of the once famous Canning Cycle’.124 William Wolrych Whitmore’s* speech at a dinner chaired by Cropper, 15 Sept. 1829, prompted further East India petitions from the associations to both Houses, 11 Mar. The inhabitants and First Co-operative Society petitioned the Commons similarly, 4 June 1830. Neither Huskisson’s appointment to the East India committee, conceded by Peel, 9 Feb., nor the referral to it of the Nonconformists’ numerous petitions against suttee, 29, 30 Mar., 29 June 1830, altered the prevailing view that government favoured the Company.125

Amid signs of an economic downturn in 1829 and 1830, the boot and shoemakers petitioned for protection, 7 May, the bankers and tradesmen for changes in the laws governing small debts, and the Brazil and River Plate Association for a reduction in butlerage, 25 May 1829.126 The assizes campaign was vainly renewed in the wake of Peel’s visit and the law commissioners’ report, and certain attorneys, ostensibly backed by the associations, petitioned both Houses against the abolition under it of the Chester exchequer court.127 Rathbone, Rushton, Shepherd and Williams revived the common halls campaign at a meeting preparatory to the 1829 mayoral election, 1 Oct., and with Ritson as their chairman, 1,000 burgesses at the shipwrights’ club, 15 Oct., resolved to form a ‘redress committee’ and nominate Currie. The assistance afforded by Thomas Fletcher and his colleagues on the Liverpool committee of the Cheshire Whig Club no longer included a bribery fund, and the Tory alderman George Drinkwater (his nickname was ‘Game-Cock’) prevailed by 208-187, whereupon the ‘redress committee’ disbanded, 23 Oct.128 Cobbett’s lectures in December 1829 proved popular, but the only radical Liverpool distress petition in 1830 was that of the imprisoned debtors, presented on 18 May. The destitute were provided for by new workers’ co-operative societies, the Provident District Society and a new asylum funded by the corporation by means of a public subscription.129 The Members supported the Ultra Knatchbull’s amendment regretting the omission of distress from the address, 4 Feb., and surprised their friends by dividing with the Whig opposition on East Retford, 11 Feb., and for the enfranchisement of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, 23 Feb.130 The Albion attributed Huskisson’s vote to his ‘powerful mind, relieved of the trammels of party’ and assigned Gascoyne’s ‘sudden conversion’ to a ‘miraculous agency’. Gascoyne’s advocacy in March of a personal surety system to facilitate the return of paupers to Ireland and Scotland compromised a third of his constituents and was at odds with the testimony of Liverpool witnesses before the 1828 select committee and the opposition raised by the corporation and the parishes to the 1830 and 1832 vagrants bills, promoted by Lord Stanley.131 The synagogue, merchants and inhabitants petitioned both Houses backing Huskisson’s ally Robert Grant’s Jewish emancipation bill, which Gascoyne opposed; and petitions were also forthcoming on the poor laws, 23 Mar., the sale of beer, 6 Apr., 4 May, truck, 17 May, and vestries bills, 27 May 1830.132 The corporation sponsored legislation for the docks, railway, and Holyhead road, but, as Loch had predicted in December 1829, attempts by individual cartels and their attorneys to legislate for railways, bridging the Runcorn Gap and linking Liverpool with Birmingham, Chester and Leeds proved premature.133 With the death of George IV anticipated, the associations’ petitions and Members’ speeches took on an electioneering air. The tobacco manufacturers pressed for lower import duties, 2 Mar., 17 May, and against making home-grown tobacco duty free, 17 May.134 The West India planters sought an ‘ample reduction’ in the sugar duties, 26 Apr., the journeyman printers the repeal of stamp duty on newsprint, 12 May, and the East India Association equalization ‘or an ad valorem duty on all colonial sugars’, 3, 21 June.135 Huskisson’s endorsement of the latter and a 7s. tariff reduction (21 June) incorporated telling evidence from Liverpool and was considered ‘almost fatal’ to the ministry.136 Gascoyne voiced the associations’ objections to the ‘new scale ministers slipped in’, 1 July. The Mexican merchants’ protest at interruptions to their trade (a version of the Glasgow, Manchester and London petitions) was deliberately kept back, 20 May, and presented to great effect by Huskisson, 29 June; likewise the Baltic merchants’ petition seeking compensation for losses sustained in the 1807 attack on Copenhagen.137

Both Members sought re-election and issued addresses directly the king’s death was announced, 28 June 1830. Gascoyne’s votes against religious liberty were criticized in handbills and in the Whig press; but, with his likely opponent Brougham, against whom Wellington considered putting up Sir Henry Hardinge* with a heavy purse, destined for Yorkshire, Leigh confidently informed Salisbury on 9 July that ‘no serious opposition ... yet threatens the General ... nor do I anticipate ... any will arise except among the lower order of freemen for the sake of a little free drink, which we shall all be most happy to admit to be a very reasonable composition for success’.138 He subsequently advised that ‘invitations to the General’s friends to meet the duke of Wellington’ at the railway’s opening were unnecessary.139 Nothing came of the Liverpool and Manchester merchants’ scheme to sponsor a businessman for Liverpool or the county, where John Wilson Patten replaced Blackburne; but they fared better when assisting candidates, such as Wolryche Whitmore in Bridgnorth, committed to opening the China trade.140 Huskisson, who was hard pressed to find a seat for Gladstone’s son Thomas, suffered a strangury at the king’s funeral. Despite his friends’ success in delaying the writ, he was unable, following surgery, to canvass personally or attend the election.141 Divisions among the Reds were evident at the Canning Club meeting chaired by Tobin, 21 July, when several of Huskisson’s 712 requisitionists, including Yates and Ritson, refused to promise funding.142 A notice of 30 July, with another (dated the 27th) from his doctors, confirmed Huskisson’s incapacity. In a rare policy statement, he advocated cutting taxes that affected the industrious poor disproportionately, ending monopolies and taking steps (such as limited reform) to encourage loyalty to the crown and Parliament.143 Reports that Wilmot Horton, Huskisson’s ally and close correspondent John Evelyn Denison or Stratford Canning* would stand in for him proved false, and on 2 Aug. Tobin and Lawrence proposed and seconded him, Richard Leyland (as Bullin had become) and John Bourne sponsored Gascoyne and Williams, belatedly proposed in ‘the people’s cause’ by the mechanics William Shane and William Millington, became their ‘feeble’ but good-humoured opponent. Shepherd expressed support for Huskisson, now he was not distracted by office, and praised his recent opposition to the ministry. Reform, the East India Company’s monopoly, retrenchment and the forthcoming opening of the railway were the main issues discussed. Consideration of the town dues dispute, which Bolton had taken up in the courts, slavery and the deposition of the French king were deliberately deferred to post-election meetings. Williams conceded defeat after a brief poll topped by Gascoyne. Williams and the Reds provided no drink and the chairing was dispensed with.144 Writing to Huskisson, Tobin attributed his second place to

some accidental splitting for Col. Williams’s bar and our being deprived of our tally at the last round by the sudden closing of the poll ... Your friends ... preferred to submit to the wishes of the returning officers in terminating the election at once, although they had three full tallies at the bar.145

Leigh advised Salisbury, 5 Aug. 1830, that ‘with an equal purse I am satisfied that the General’s party is the strongest of any in the town’.146

The railway opening, 15 Sept., and attendant civic dinners in Manchester and Liverpool, where, as Salisbury’s guest, Wellington would take up the freedom, were national events and Huskisson’s attendance was politically vital despite his continued debility.147 Lords Granville, Gower and Melbourne, Sir James Robert George Graham* and Edward Littleton* were invited to accompany Huskisson to counter the ‘duke’s tail’ (Salisbury, Skelmersdale, Wilton), to which Gascoyne attached himself. Brougham was expected, and accommodation at country seats in the vicinity was at a premium.148 Huskisson’s fatal accident that day impacted on politics nationally and in Liverpool, where canvassing for the ensuing by-election commenced well before his burial with civic pomp in the new St. James’s cemetery, 24 Sept.149 Setting the tone for their campaign, on 17 Sept. Gladstone’s business partner George Grant informed him that

Peel should be glad of it, but I hope and trust he will be scouted, though I fear there are many disposed to press him upon us. Your name has been mentioned by those who are your friends and have always been so. Young Stanley is thought of by others and he would be glad of it, but then his grandfather’s life is not worth more than a year or two, and he would go to the county. Charles Grant*, Kirkman Finlay*, William Ewart, Sir Stratford Canning are all in people’s mouths, but we must all use the utmost exertions against any man who will not support the West Indies and surely that interest is strong enough to succeed here.150

The Whigs regretted the unavailability of Brougham and Lord John Russell* and predicted until the last that Gladstone would offer on the hustings. They speculated with some justification that Peel’s prospects were blighted ‘by association’ with the ‘Ultra Tories (Bold, the Bournes, Holmes, Irlam, Lambert, Potter, Porter, Shand, Sandbach, Thomas Tobin and Henry Wilson, etc.)’ who had first requisitioned him. They predicted that Ewart, who had declared on 18 Sept. as a Huskissonite and local candidate connected with Canning, would ‘vex Peel "expensively" but not beat him’, and that Bolton’s choice, Lady Canning’s nephew, the duke of Portland’s son-in-law Denison, a schoolfellow and political ally of Ewart and Smith Stanley, would run Peel closer.151 Ewart’s private refusal to make way for Gladstone and much-publicized decision to do so for Charles Grant, whom Shepherd deemed capable of uniting a ‘prodigious interest if he comes into the field’, caused a 21-year breach between the Ewarts and Gladstones.152 Brougham, monitoring elections for the Whigs, urged Smith Stanley to stand ‘to stop Peel’, but he presciently warned of the threat to the Derby interest at Preston should he vacate and advised that his name be kept ‘quite in the background’ at Liverpool, lest it divide their friends. He pondered:

I do not know what we are to do to give Ewart such support as we can in the event of his coming to the poll. He is not quite the candidate we should have wished for, and I hope if Denison stands he will not. I think my chance is out: for I should not think of a contest in any case, and if Peel accepts, this is certain.153

Talk of William Sturges Bourne* and of Wilmot Horton, who resented being overlooked, evaporated, and Lord Palmerston* and Charles Poulett Thomson* were mentioned as ‘Huskisson’s heir’ when Bolton’s hopes of ‘smuggling in’ Denison unopposed were dashed.154 With the Canning party split between the Peelites, eager for representation by a current cabinet minister of great influence and patronage, and Grant’s supporters, ‘the junta consisting of Rushton, Ritson, Rathbone, Bummell, Lowes, etc.’, looking to his return to the board of trade for their reward, Bolton offered to sponsor Grant.155 An editorial in the Albion, which subsequently backed Ewart, 4 Oct., criticized Liverpool’s caucus politics and the ‘farce by which candidates are requisitioned’. Bidding for support from the treasury and the leading Blues Wright and Forster, Gladstone rallied late to Peel, whose candidature began to look unlikely, in view of the high cost of safeguarding his election and his threatened Tamworth interest, even before his refusal (citing the impossibility of combining high office with adequate representation of Liverpool) was announced at a meeting chaired by the chairman of the West India Association, Horsfall, 6 Oct. Overtures to Peel’s brothers failed.156 Grant’s refusal, announced on 8 Oct. at a meeting chaired by the chairman of the American Chamber of Commerce, William Brown, prompted a requisition and subscription for Denison, who was waiting at Knowsley as Smith Stanley’s guest. He accepted. Most of Peel’s requisitionists rallied to him, and Brown and Shand introduced him at the Exchange, where he paid tribute to Huskisson, 14 Oct. Ewart, sponsored on the 15th by Irlam, Preston and his brothers John, a common councillor and head of the family firms, and Joseph, a director of the Manchester railway, spoke similarly. Claiming to be independent of party, he stressed his Liverpool mercantile origins, opposition to monopolies, support for religious toleration and popular education, reform of the corn and game laws and freedom for slaves with liberal compensation for planters.157 Leigh predicted that ‘Ewart’s nativity ... and his purse will prevail’ and cautioned against interference by the Blues lest they damage their future prospects. He later voted for Denison as the less radical.158 With votes at 6s. each, the sugar refiner Thomas Brancker (whose brother James chaired Ewart’s committee) defeated Currie (449-409) in the mayoral poll amid allegations that Ewing was bribed to close proceedings prematurely. Tories prevailed in the bailiffs’ election. On the 19th the public houses were opened and the candidates addressed rival meetings at the Golden Lion, where Bolton and Sir John Tobin introduced Denison, and the King’s Arms, where James Brancker, Colquitt, Ewart and Shepherd were the main speakers.159 Both candidates professed to be reformers opposed to monopolies, and attention focused on the ratepayer (vestry) vote, for which Denison favoured a £20 and Ewart a £10 qualification, and slavery, on which Denison gave little away and Ewart compounded his ‘sin’ of voting to consider abolition, 13 July 1830, by suggesting that the colonies themselves should compensate the planters.160 Gladstone demanded policy statements from both and chose Denison, who had sought his assistance the previous week, as the more malleable, less radical and friendlier to the West Indians. To Peel, who knew otherwise, Gladstone justified his selection by projecting Denison as the likelier supporter of the tottering Wellington administration.161 The Liverpool Chronicle endorsed Denison, and Gladstone went ‘about with a begging box’, which, Shepherd observed, ‘damps the ardour of his friends’.162 Dismayed by Rushton’s defection and the money flying about, Shepherd backed Ewart, but he warned Brougham that Ewart’s brothers, who initially ‘clubbed among them £15,000’, were ‘raw in electioneering’ and doubted ‘whether they know how to apply it efficiently’. Williams’s petition against Huskisson’s return ‘as a pensioner’ delayed the writ, so encouraging talk of a third man and further petitions.163 Squibs portrayed Denison as a block of Portland stone and exploited his defeat at Newcastle-under-Lyme and dependence on Bolton and the ‘dictators’. Ewart’s youth, small stature, lack of employment and recourse to a purchased seat were also exploited.164 Both candidates declared support for Lord Grey’s ministry and no new issues were raised on the hustings, 23 Nov., when Bolton and Tobin proposed Denison and James Brancker and Colquitt nominated Ewart. With the outcome uncertain, the expense and venality exceeded even the most pessimistic predictions and dominated private commentary and newspaper coverage of the proceedings.165 Shepherd notified Brougham on the fourth day:

There is a most curious scene going on in Liverpool. The Ewart family are singly (as to purse) fighting the whole oligarchy ... of which their late father was a member. They have the populace and almost every one of the liberals with them. But every vote of the operatives ... is bought on both sides. Prices at the opening £5 per man, which today range from £10 to £15. By an accident similar to what happened to you, Ewart lost 12 the first day; but has gone neck and neck with the oligarchs since 3,888 are already polled; so I suppose the tug of war will be on Monday. Where Denison gets his money I do not know; but on Wednesday John Bolton had bled to the tune of £3,000. A confidential friend of mine has the custody of a lot of our Manchester voters who came by railroad accompanied by their wives. He told me that males and females got so drunk that he and three others of our staff were forced to put them to bed; and found both sexes so bothered that they could not distinguish the lawful pairs and packed them to the best of their judgement. Boccaccio would have made a chapter of this for the De Camerone. The Lascar attended the nomination. Capt. Colquitt ... was appointed to draw the badger and to worry him. But when provoked ... he actually slunk from front to rear, sneaked from the hustings and fled to Leamington, the object of general exeats.166

Denison, who pressed to be appointed vice-president of the board of trade ‘immediately’ to boost his prospects, was mentioned as secretary at war and secretary to the India board during the poll. He maintained his 12-vote lead for six days, but, polled out, he was overtaken and conceded defeat by 29 votes on the seventh.167 Symbolically, Roscoe, frail with age, was one of the last to vote and speak for Ewart.168 Also on the hustings that day, another key Ewart supporter, Yates, publicly refused him his vote and denounced the bribery perpetrated. Whether he did so in Ewart’s hearing became a factor in proving Ewart guilty of bribery by agency.169 Gladstone’s son Robertson, who put the cost to the Ewarts alone at £100,000, conceded that errors were made in estimating freeman numbers and attributed Denison’s defeat to ‘two circumstances: one, that we did not begin to spend soon enough; the other, the unfortunate connection with Rushton, Bummell and that set, who completely prevented the Blues from taking part in the canvass’.170

Both sides conceded bad votes, drew parallels with East Retford and Evesham and surmised that although the case for reform was strengthened, the result augured badly for the enfranchisement of large towns and put Liverpool at risk of disfranchisement.171 After scrutiny, the totals from 4,335 ‘good votes’ were Ewart 2,186, Denison 2,149, a majority of 37; 671 named freemen were listed as unpolled; a further 66 had votes rejected. Gore put the cost to the Ewarts at £65,000 and £47-50,000 to Denison, towards which Bolton contributed £10,000 and ‘other gentlemen ... liberally followed’. In March 1831, before petitioning costs were fully met, the Gladstones calculated that Ewart alone had paid £82,450.172 A copy of the pollbook (in London’s Guildhall Library), annotated by one of Ewart’s committee, details payments totalling £22,360 to 1,303 Ewart voters (600 under £10, a further 462 under £20,209 under £30, 24 under and only eight over £40); it notes that Denison’s voters received £22,368. The 3,623 residents polled voted for Ewart by 1,841-1,782; the 712 out-voters, who came from as far afield as Lisbon, Demerara and Ireland, for Denison by 367-345; but the Manchester contingent (including Salford, Stockport and Oldham) voted decisively (82-30) for Ewart. The town clerk William Statham testified on inquiry (21 Mar. 1831) that some 3,000 of Liverpool’s 5,271 freemen were ‘lower class’; 867 were admitted during the election and Ewart’s ‘accountant’, the attorney John Pennington, signed approximately 300 of the 600 £2 admission tickets presented.173 Gore’s occupational analysis (appended to the poll book) offered confirmation of the prevailing view outside Liverpool that Denison’s strength lay among the ‘broadcloth’ and Ewart’s among the low tradesmen, but it also indicated that this class difference was exaggerated. Gore’s ‘gentlemen, merchants and brokers’ voted by 382-241 for Denison, but about 258 so described, including James Aspinall, the Bensons, Birch, Blackburne, Gascoyne, Molyneux, John Moss, Henry Meyers, the Smith Stanleys, Wainwright, Williams and Yates, remained unpolled. Ewart had majorities among Gore’s accountants (79-67), coopers (164-70), cabinet makers (228-139), iron founders (47-24) and shipwrights (297-249); Denison among the sail makers (98-89), mariners (104-67), ropers (148-129), block makers (86-55) and other seafaring trades.174 Using the same source, Ewart’s committee calculated that Denison had a majority of 56 (401-345) among the ‘liberal professions, merchants, gentlemen and brokers’; Ewart a majority of 88 (482-394) among the ‘accountants, book-keepers and master-tradesmen’ - an ‘overall majority of 32’ from the ‘top two classes’. Defeat forced Denison to relinquish office as clerk of the ordnance (unannounced in Liverpool during the election), whereupon the Tory minister Lord Ellenborough complained that ministers ‘prostituted office to the electioneering objects of Denison’.175

George Grant and Gladstone’s attorney Richard Radcliffe organized petitions against Ewart’s return.176 The first, from the merchants John Wybergh, Mark Rimmer and Henry Hasleden (by which Ewart was unseated, 28 Mar. 1831), was presented on 13 Dec., alleged gross bribery, of which his committee, including his brothers, were found guilty after the testimony of 27 Liverpool witnesses was assessed. The petitioners’ request that the return be amended in favour of Denison was rejected and the election was declared void.177 George Grant, who attended throughout, noted that it ‘was not the intention of the committee to render Ewart ineligible to stand again, but some think that their report has that effect’.178 Gladstone, who refused to ‘condone’ Denison’s support for reform, wrote to him of the danger of further petitions should he contest Liverpool again. He cited their counsel Merewether’s warning

that if any one freeman was to give notice to you and the freemen assembled at the hustings during the election, that in the event of your being returned, he would petition against you, on the grounds of bribery and treating practices at the last election, that he would be entitled to do so now, as Ewart was unseated solely on that ground, for it was not proved that he had been a party to it.179

The second petition, presented on 20 Dec., was from the ‘liberal’ attorney Peter Rigby Wason*, who was mocked in Liverpool, where the Chronicle backed him, as Gladstone’s self-serving ‘tool’. Alleging bribery, it echoed Wason’s open letter to the corporation urging local electoral reform and requested that no new writ be issued without a full inquiry. Its presenter George Robinson heralded it as ‘remedial’ and caused a furore by maintaining (erroneously) that Ewart proposed taking the Chiltern Hundreds before the first petition was heard to prevent the exposure of corruption at Liverpool.180 According to Denison, who heard it from John Benett, ten days before he became chairman of the predominantly Whig election committee, the strategy for exploiting their findings had already been agreed:

J. Benett means first to apply for a bill of indemnity, and then to establish bribery by evidence against whole bodies of men, and upon that evidence to disfranchise all the corrupt freemen by a distinct bill ... In the meantime certainly no writ will issue, as Lord Chandos had intended to take up the case if Benett had not, and he and his party will insist on the prosecution of the inquiry.181

Benett carried the writ’s suspension, 29 Mar., 15, 21 Apr. 1831, when, with the dissolution imminent, he withdrew a resolution ‘that the system of corruption and treating which has prevailed at the elections of burgesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of Liverpool, deserves the attention of the House’, substituted another confirming the committee’s finding that ‘gross bribery and treating prevailed during the last election’, and carried it (164-142) despite ministerial opposition.182

The merchants scrutinized the Members’ conduct on slavery and East and West Indian issues with renewed vigilance. They dismissed Gascoyne, who called for and was conceded a place on the East India committee (6 Feb. 1831), as a ‘Goose’ and criticized Ewart’s inexperience.183 Cropper, John Ewart and Gore Langton represented Liverpool on the East India deputation that lobbied Lord Grey for the immediate opening of the China trade, 5 Feb. The Liverpool address, adopted at a well-attended meeting at Wason’s Buildings, 19 Jan., had been proposed by John Ewart, who used the occasion to identify himself politically with Roscoe, Rathbone and Currie.184 Nonconformists of all denominations sent up petitions to both Houses supporting the campaign to abolish colonial slavery, 16 Nov. 1830-20 Apr. 1831. Gascoyne, unlike Ewart, played down support for these petitions, 9, 11 Dec. 1830, 28, 29 Mar. 1831. Both testified to the distress complained of in those from the planters, 13, 15 Dec., and Ewart’s endorsement that day of the West India Association’s petition for gradual abolition and compensation mollified his critics.185 Thomas Brancker encouraged a pragmatic approach when a delegation from the corporation failed to exact concessions on the sugar duties from the chancellor Lord Althorp, 5 Feb.186 The budget the following week encouraged speculation on tobacco and caused a ‘great sensation’ on the Exchange; the proposed stock transfer tax, mixed concessions on textiles, and duties on soap, steamboat passengers and timber, which Ewart criticized in debate, 15, 17 Feb., became the subject of hostile memorials and petitions.187 Legislation affecting the Liverpool-Manchester railway, the Preston road and the Liverpool poor was enacted amid hostile petitioning during that Parliament; but the Liverpool-Leeds railway bill, for which Tobin had secured Lord Derby’s support, failed, 17 Mar., and the St. Bridget’s church and Chorlton railway bills were casualties of the dissolution.188

Reformers and anti-reformers cited the 1830 by-election and quoted selectively from Canning and Huskisson’s speeches to promote their cause. The ratepayers sent petitions to both Houses expressing support for Grey’s administration, an extended franchise, voting by districts, triennial parliaments, short polls and the ballot, 26, 28 Feb. 1831, but neither the Members nor the petition’s Commons presenter Lord Stanley endorsed the last plea, which Rushton had controversially rushed through at the meeting, 14 Dec. 1830.189 A summary of the ministerial reform bill, ‘sent ... by express’ and read out at the Exchange, was received with ‘a shout of applause’, 2 Mar. 1831.190 The merchants James Aitken, Charles Barnard, Eyre Evans, William Rotheram and John Shand headed the requisition and Cropper, Currie, Shepherd, Williams, Ottiwell Wood, Yates and the sugar refiner Thomas Thornely were the main speakers at a reform meeting, 5 Mar. Their petition for the bill, which Ewart and his brothers fully endorsed, and the ballot, which they did not but the political unionists pressed, was presented by Gascoyne with another from the ‘merchants and bankers’ for ‘some reform’, 14 Mar.191 Pending the verdict on Ewart’s return, discussion of elections involving Canning and Huskisson was stifled, and Wason and others attempted to damage the reputation of the Ewarts by criticizing the conduct at the late election of Ewart’s clergyman brother Peter.192 Ewart, who retained Shepherd’s support, voted for the reform bill, 22 Mar.; Gascoyne paired against it, publicly advocated enfranchising large towns and ‘moderate reform’ and co-operated with Gladstone, the shipwrights and the corporation to encourage opposition to the freeman disfranchisements it proposed. A common council meeting on 19 Mar. and certain ‘inhabitants’ so circulated petitioned thus, 29 Mar., 12 Apr. Meanwhile the ‘unbribed freemen’, led by the shipbuilder Charles Grayson, resolved to petition ‘against the proposed disfranchisement of the whole’ on ‘account of the delinquencies of only a part’, 15 Apr. 1831.193 On the 19th Gascoyne carried the amendment by which the bill was wrecked, precipitating a dissolution.

Both sides speculated that they could return two Members at the ensuing general election. Ewart, who declared as a supporter of the bill, 23 Apr., was ‘rapturously received on the Exchange’, 25 Apr., and approved at a public meeting convened to thank the king for dissolving Parliament, 27 Apr. With the political unionists supportive, notwithstanding the omission from the bill of the ballot and shorter parliaments, and an eye to assisting Ewart and ousting Wilson Patten, a reform committee was named that day and a delegation dispatched to London to vet candidates. Currie and James Brancker, chairman of the committee appointed on 31 Mar. ‘to restore Ewart’, rallied supporters at the King’s Arms, 28 Apr. Charles Shand summoned ‘Denison’s friends’, who on 26 and 27 Apr. resolved to nominate him notwithstanding his decision to contest Nottinghamshire. The anti-reformers, who claimed to have secured 1,400 votes for Gascoyne and ‘any person he may bring along with him’, bandied about Peel’s name, approached Lord Francis Leveson Gower* and feted their supporters at a meeting chaired by Richard Leyland at the Golden Lion, 29 Apr.194 Assessing the situation for the reformers, Shepherd, who knew also of the overtures to Sefton and Stratford Canning and that Ewart would yield to Denison if Lord Althorp* so willed, wrote to Brougham:

Of the 4,860 votes which we have, 4,500 are ascertained to be [by] venal scoundrels, and all the clubs are indignant at the bill, which, they say, robs their children of their bread. Gascoyne is the god of their idolatry, and he is unshakeable. Nor will he want funds, though he has merely a handful of friends among the broadcloth. For Leyland the banker will spend thousands for him; and his private supporters are the best electioneers in the town. He is despised and detested by our people of education; and some of them may write to you that he is easily to be gotten rid of. But I am more experienced ... Lord Stanley proposed a coalition between Denison and Ewart. The proposal was deliberated upon in our privy council; and we were unanimously of opinion that it would be unavailing ... Gascoyne’s leading friends yesterday did not mean to concur in inviting another Tory candidate ... There are, however, two dangers; namely the inexperienced praters ... nominating a second Whig candidate, which is our greatest peril; and the arrival of Lord Gower or someone else to stand on the Tory interest, with whom the Gascoyneites must of course unite themselves.195

On 2 May the reformers were out in force and Gascoyne, whose death had been deliberately misreported the previous day, was hissed as he walked to the hustings with his sponsors Leyland and Bourne.196 Ewart, discomfited only by cries of ‘timber duties’, was nominated as previously; John Formby of Kirkdale and the merchant William Tomlinson nominated Denison, despite Radcliffe’s refusal on his behalf. Rathbone, standing to maximize the number of polling booths, as permitted by by-law and the 1828 Act, was proposed by Francis Jordan and Rushton, who also vented his spleen against Gascoyne. Candidates’ speeches were dispensed with.197 Reporting to Brougham at the end of the first day with the poll at Ewart 1,384, Denison 1,374, Gascoyne 405, Ewart attributed the reformers’ success to multiple booths. He added: ‘our party and Denison’s marched on without coalition, but with a good understanding, till the return of one reformer was certain. We then joined forces à la belle alliance’.198 Gascoyne’s committee, who put down £2,000 (more than they had in hand) and applied through Salisbury to the London Charles Street committee for assistance, attributed his poor showing to their inability to get up voters through the crowd; but George Grant thought they were themselves to ‘blame in not meeting [the terms of] Lord F. Gower, who would probably have kept back many of Denison’s friends’.199 Gascoyne stayed away on the second day, when the result was declared and celebrated by reformers nationwide; and the issue became whether or not Denison, whom Brown, Garnett and Radcliffe immediately contacted, would abandon Nottinghamshire. Ewart’s expenses, many of them incurred at the five-hour chairing, 6 May, were estimated at £1,000-1,200; Denison’s at £5-600.200 Shepherd, who knew of the on-going threat posed by Lord Gower at Worsley, and plots to make Rathbone a ‘real candidate’ or a stand-in for Birch’s son Thomas, explained to Brougham:

We, Ewart’s committee, found it safe to enter into a cordial union with the remainder (split Denison party) who were headed by Rushton, in whom we could confide. The resorting to booths and doing away the tally system finished the discomfiture of the General, who had no time to resort to tactics and tricks and was at once overwhelmed by the votes which were brought up rapidly by the three committees who were united against him. Upon the new plan the burgess was not delayed. He walked up to his letter and standing alone on a step gave his suffrage without anyone save the returning officers and a friend of each candidate knowing for whom he gave it ... I understand that the tallow chandlers have put their brother shopkeepers up to an illumination. The language of these is we work for reform and not for individuals: but with the gentry Denison’s name is a tower of strength.201

Denison’s refusal, announced on 6 May 1831, fuelled speculation that the president of the board of trade Charles Grant, the India board secretary Thomas Hyde Villiers*, for whom Shepherd ‘prepared the ground’, Molyneux, the foreign secretary Palmerston, the Irish secretary Smith Stanley or Silk Buckingham would stand at the ensuing by-election.202 But Grant’s choice Lord Sandon, the Huskissonite son of the Tory peer Lord Harrowby, who had relinquished his Tiverton seat after voting for the reform bill, emerged as the front-runner, adopted by ‘the most powerful of Canning and Huskisson’s friends’, Shand, ‘the chairman of Gascoyne’s committee and a few eunuch Whigs, viz. Jordan, Charles Lawrence and old Will Earle’ (Shepherd) and endorsed by Grey.203 Also in the field, ‘applied to by the new estate, the shopkeepers and by a number of master tradesmen’, was Thornely, whose supporters rallied at the York Hotel to ‘mark the king’s birthday’, 30 May.204 Sandon, accompanied by Lord Derby’s attorney Adam Hodgson and John Moss, was presented at the King’s Arms and the Exchange the following week. Shepherd, acting as Brougham’s emissary, now failed to persuade either to let Althorp choose between them.205 He wrote of Sandon, whose supporters played the anti-Unitarian card:

He is certainly in a curious and, I should think, in an uneasy situation. Mr. Earle and Mr. Lawrence, his chairman and vice-chairman, are certainly Whigs though feeble ones; but his committee consists of thorough paced Tories, haters of ministers and the bill ... Each party is confident of success. It is the aristocracy against the commonalty, the merchants against the shopkeepers.206

Reports that Gascoyne would ‘fight a hard battle’ or ‘prevent a new election till next year ... by petitioning’ created unease, but, convinced that Sandon was ‘no Whig’ and the General’s chances slim, his supporters joined ‘Canning’s and part of the Whigs’ in endorsing Sandon, who informed Grey, 3 July:

It is the battle of a churchman against a Unitarian, of an aristocrat against a plebeian, of a stranger, connected through you with Pitt and Lord Liverpool, and through myself as well as you in some degree with Canning and Huskisson, against a second rate merchant of fair abilities and good character, and popular among his brother merchants by being a merchant in a particular trade, and among the lower freemen by his Yankee connections ... The sting of popular opposition is drawn by my being a reformer, as well as my opponent; and the Tories are willing to have me in their despair because I have refused to pledge myself to the ‘whole bill’. 207

As Wason, Benett and the anti-reformers intended, delays to the by-election writ, justified by Charles Williams Wynn on procedural grounds, and the revival of the franchise bill, which proposed the disfranchisement of 2,661 freemen guilty of receiving bribes in November 1830, ensured that bribery and corruption at Liverpool remained a major issue in 1831-2.208 Denison’s attempts to move the writ were exploited and adjourned, 6, 8 July, on the last occasion by 117-99, despite ministerial backing. Wason, whose brother Eugene was the Liverpool attorney in charge of the franchise bill, refused to retract statements that treating was under way at the forthcoming by-election, when contradictory statements were read to the House from the candidates’ committees, 14 July.209 Supported by Lord Stanley, Ewart (who communicated closely with Shepherd throughout), Denison and other locally connected Members, the bankers, merchants and inhabitants complained that Liverpool was half-disfranchised and petitioned for a new writ, 29, 30 Aug. Granville Vernon’s motion for it, 5 Sept., was hijacked by Benett, who, quoting extensively from his report, bid successfully (76-35) for votes from both sides of the House with an amendment substituting the bribery resolution of 21 Apr. Leave was granted for the franchise bill the same day.210 The corporation held aloof from the coronation celebrations, which commenced with a reform rally chaired by John Ewart (in Clayton Square), 7 Sept., and culminated in the adoption of a congratulatory address and the award of a knighthood to its presenter Thomas Brancker.211 Petitions to the Lords favourable to the reform bill were forthcoming from the Ciceronian Society, 30 Sept., Liverpool and Toxteth Park, 4 Oct. (the last two the products of populous meetings chaired by Birch, 19 Sept., and Lord Molyneux, 22 Sept.). Leigh, however, was convinced that support for reform was waning and advised Salisbury accordingly.212 Following the bill’s defeat in the Lords, Wason failed (93-67) to postpone the writ, 12 Oct.; and the franchise bill was almost killed by a three-month adjournment carried the same day.213 On 22 Nov. 1831 the corporation formally thanked Vernon for securing the writ.214

Reform meetings and a mayoral contest presaged the final stage of the by-election canvass. As agreed at a select meeting at the Clarendon Rooms, 10 Oct. 1831, the Clayton Square meeting chaired by Molyneux, 12 Oct., voted addresses to the king and Grey urging peerage creations to carry the bill and appointed a 40-strong ‘standing committee on reform’, drawn almost exclusively from Ewart and Thornely’s election committees.215 Meanwhile a meeting chaired by John Ewart at the Golden Lion, 11 Oct., resolved to nominate Currie and make open reporting of common council proceedings the key issue at the mayoral election. Currie lost by 691-659, 18 Oct., after the Tory alderman Samuel Sandbach, who accused the reformers of not doing enough to stop the franchise bill, was substituted for Horsfall as his opponent. Sandbach’s supporters paraded Wason in effigy throughout.216 On the 20th, Sandon, who, in correspondence with Smith Stanley the previous week had confirmed his support for reform and discussed possible modifications to the bill, was escorted by a cross-party delegation from the Bull to the hustings and proposed and seconded by Lawrence and Moss. He praised Canning, claimed to have Brougham’s endorsement and maintained that the Lords (including his father) had erred by rejecting the reform bill at its second reading instead of amending its errors in committee.217 Thornely and his proposers, Currie and Leathom, stressed their commitment to the whole bill, including (amid cries of ‘too low’) the £10 householder vote, and Thornely strove to make virtues of his residence, long-standing support for reform and success in business.218 Sandon’s swift victory next day, when voting was consistently 2:1 in his favour, was attributed to the merchants’ preference for a distinguished aristocratic outsider; but Colquitt, whose appearance at the chairing, caused surprise, blamed Thornely’s incompetence as a public speaker.219 Shepherd, writing to Brougham, 23 Oct., explained:

The fact ... is that our corrupt freemen had recovered from their panic on the withdrawing of Benett’s bill, and thinking themselves out of danger of disfranchisement have given full fling to their evil passions. They naturally hate reform and, seeing Sandon supported by anti-reformers, voted him in. It is a great mercy that the Tories were pledged to Sandon; for they had power to bring in even a worse subject than General Gascoyne. Sandon also played a low trick in refusing to concur with Thornely in demanding the booths, which the freemen utterly abominate; and Thornely having simply demanded this, the Tory canvassers made that an effectual handle against him. So annoyed were the carpenters against the booths that a large posse of constables were requisite to prevent them from pulling them down that night before polling commenced. I could have wished to say that the matter was indifferent to the cause, as this was only a choice of reformers. But Sandon’s declarations on reform have been very imprudent if he is sincere. He spoke ... slightingly of the bill, which is the favourite of the people and did not say what parts of it he objected to, and made an apology for the bishops ... At his chairing yesterday, he was hissed through the town.220

Denison was among the 650 who celebrated Sandon’s return at the Amphitheatre, 28 Oct.221 George Grant, as treasurer of his election committee, spent £2,315 8s., 17 June 1831-10 Jan. 1832, including payments to Sandbach, Moss and Company, William Fairclough, Harold Littledale, George Irlam and £300 to Eckersley.222

Encouraged by his father and Lord Wharncliffe for the Tory ‘Waverers’, whose politics he later endorsed, Sandon welcomed Liverpool’s adoption on 21 Nov. 1831 of a loyal address proposed by Gladstone, which criticized the bill as ‘too sweeping’, opposed peerage creations and recommended raising the £10 qualification in large towns. Presented on 14 Dec. by Lord Skelmersdale, at Wright’s request, the names, professions and addresses of the 1,500 signatories were included to give it ‘weight’.223 Differences over reform and the ‘reaction’ against it marred the mayor’s dinner, 8 Dec., and were evident in claims and counterclaims the Members made for Liverpool in the House, 7, 12 Dec. 1831.224 To the corporation’s dismay Ewart opposed an amendment, which Sandon backed, imposing a £15 qualification in large towns, 3 Feb. 1832.225 A ‘newspaper war’ erupted over Sandon’s alignment with opposition on the schedule B disfranchisements, 23 Jan., Helston, 23 Feb., and Tower Hamlets, 28 Feb.226 Before the third reading of the revised reform bill, 22 Mar., for which both Members voted, the Liverpool Parliamentary Reform Union, established by Williams after the 1831 by-election to promote ‘real and effectual representation’ and public harmony, issued a warning notice regretting that Sandon’s ‘judgement [was] calculated on critical occasions to do serious mischief to the cause of reform’.227 Attempts by Croker and the anti-reformers to goad the Liverpool Members into supporting the separate enfranchisement of Toxteth Park, which Wason advocated (6 Aug. 1831, 28 Feb., 5 Mar. 1832), or a third Member for Liverpool, which Ewart privately favoured, had little success.228 On 7 Mar. Ewart informed Shepherd:

Toxteth Park has been made a rallying point by Peel and Croker. I suspect that Moss is Peel’s correspondent in this business, and that Peel has an eye to Toxteth, as he has always had to Liverpool. The reformers in the Park should have been earlier in their application. They did indeed apply (without my knowledge) last year; but they have not renewed their claim since the new bill was introduced. Now ministers cannot grant a demand, which could be a silent admission of their own inadvertency. The opposition will, however, be glad to make use of this instrument against them - and since the inhabitants of the Park claim my aid, I must give it them on this occasion.229

When the bill was jeopardized by defeat in the Lords (to which Harrowby contributed) and the king’s abortive overture to Wellington, the committee of the Parliamentary Reform Union placarded the town, 9 May, and the reformers convened and addressed a Clayton Square meeting, 14 May 1832, to petition for withholding supplies pending its passage. There, Thornely pressed for a declaration of support for Ewart in the event of a dissolution and denounced Sandon’s failure to vote for ‘Lord Grey and the unimpaired bill’, 10 May, as Ewart had done. Molyneux, as chairman, signed the petition, and Waithman and Ewart presented and endorsed it the next day.230 He wrote afterwards to Shepherd:

I am sorry that you are so angry at my friend Lord Sandon. Recollect, however, he is a great friend of the lord chancellor, and an excellent friend and supporter of the university [London], which was the origin of my friendship with him. I wish also you to keep in mind that he has had the courage to vote for reform against his father, and all his connections, the Bute and Beaufort families, and that his father turned him out of Tiverton in consequence. He was made secretary of the board of control and gave up the place when he found he could not vote with ministers in every division; and at Liverpool he plainly said that he was a reformer, but would pledge himself for the bill, the whole bill and nothing but the bill. He may be wrong, but I can see he is very honest and independent in his opinions. I saw the censure passed upon him by the political union of Liverpool, and I was rather amused in seeing that his punishment was to lose their confidence, as he never had it.231

A ‘hole and corner’ counter-petition that received 1,406 signatures was apparently not presented. The Parliamentary Reform Union solicited signatures for a rabid declaration denouncing Wellington as a politician. Over 2,000 inhabitants petitioned the Commons requesting extension of the English bill’s provisions to Ireland, 21 June.232 The second reading of the franchise bill, which both Members condemned as unjust, was repeatedly postponed, carried (44-10) in their absence, 23 May, and committed next day. Pennington and the merchants James Eckersley, Joseph Myers and Thomas Bold were summoned as witnesses and instructed to produce all accounts, lists and correspondence. The corporation’s hostile petition (presented, 24 May) was referred to them and counsel ordered, 4 July. Sandon failed to kill the bill that day - the House was inquorate - but its passage before the dissolution had become impossible and Benett withdrew it on Peel’s advice, 13 July: £151 17s. had been spent on witnesses.233 In September 1832 Shepherd chaired the celebrations to mark the reform bill’s enactment and the Parliamentary Reform Union disbanded.234

A further Liverpool-Manchester railway bill received royal assent, 23 May 1832, after the proprietors had come to an ‘understanding with government on taxation’.235 The Prescot road, Liverpool cattle market, St. Bridget’s church, Liverpool Marine Insurance Company and Liverpool revenue buildings bills were passed that Parliament, the last two with ministerial backing.236 Both Houses received petitions from the corn millers for a protective tariff on flour imports, 30 June, 7 July 1831, and the Commons received several against the marine insurance duty, 8 July, and for redress for vessels captured (in 1826-7) by the Brazilian navy, 20 Sept. 1831, 28 Feb. 1832.237 Informed by Denison in July 1831 that the sugar duties would remain unchanged, the East and West Indian Associations liaised with John Wood, as a member of East and West India select committees.238 They petitioned against the sugar refinery bill, 16 Aug., 5 Sept. 1831, and sought to amend it to prohibit the export of products derived from molasses, 7 Oct. 1831.239 The Commons received petitions against the general register bill, 11 Oct. 1831, 14 Feb.; and both Houses did so for the abolition of capital punishment for non-violent theft (Ewart’s bill), 7 May, 25 June, and forgery, 25 July 1832.240 The Dissenters ensured that petitioning was overwhelmingly in favour of the Maynooth grant, 16 Mar., 22 June, 23, 26 July, petitioned the Lords for immediate consideration of slavery abolition, 2 July, and dominated the slavery debates at the Amphitheatre in July and August 1832.241 The merchants and planters looked to Sandon, as a member of the select committee, for advice and petitioned for inquiry into the condition of the West Indian slaves with a view to their relief, 27 July 1832.242

As the commissioners had recommended, Kirkdale, Everton, part of Walton, West Derby and Toxteth Park were added to the constituency under the Boundary Act, increasing the population from 165,175 to 185,000. At 11,283, even allowing for duplicate qualification, the electorate more than doubled and was the second largest in the country. About 1,882 of the 3,733 freemen registered in November 1832, when freemen formed a third of the electorate, were liable to disfranchisement for receiving bribes in 1830. At least 1,451 freemen were also £10 voters.243 Collusion and the support of the West India interest and the ‘old freemen’ enabled Ewart and Sandon to outpoll the Conservative newcomer Sir Howard Douglas† and Thornely at the 1832 general election.244 Subsequent inquiry found that gross bribery and corruption at Liverpool mayoral and parliamentary elections had been endemic from 1823.245 Benett’s franchise bill, revived in 1833 with support from disillusioned Thornely voters, was finally abandoned when the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act was implemented.246 The constituency, which was increasingly influenced by its Irish immigrant population, remained hotly contested at elections and rarely free from bribery. Until 1868, when Bootle-cum-Linacre, Fairfield and part of Wavertree were added to the parliamentary borough, which then received a third seat, a Conservative held one seat, and from 1837-47, 1852-55 and 1865-68, both.247

Author: Margaret Escott


  • 1. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 543.
  • 2. Ibid.; Liverpool Pollbook (Nov. 1830) ed. J. Gore.
  • 3. S. Marriner, Economic and Social Development of Merseyside, 31-34; PP (1835), xxvi. 615; Liverpool Shipping, Trade and Industry ed. V. Burton, passim; C.W. Chalkin, The Rise of the English Town, 15, 43; A Wilson, ‘"The Florence of the North"? The Civic Culture of Liverpool in Early 19th Cent’, in Gender, Civic Culture and Consumerism: Middle Class Identity in Britain, 1800-1940 ed. A. Kidd and D. Nicholls, 34-46.
  • 4. E.M. Menzies, ‘Freeman Voter in Liverpool’, Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, cxxiv (1973), 85-107; F. Vigier, Change and Apathy, 71-72.
  • 5. R.M. Bousfield, Procs. before Select Committee (Liverpool, 1831), 15, 63; HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 228-32; M. Brock, Great Reform Act, 145-6.
  • 6. Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 4 Oct. 1830.
  • 7. R. Muir and E.M. Platt, Hist. Municipal Government of Liverpool, 134, 137; J. Longmore, ‘Development of Liverpool Corporation Estate, 1760-1835’ (Univ. of Reading Ph.D. thesis, 1982), i, pp. vii-xiii; ii. 468; B. Whittingham-Jones, ‘Electioneering in Lancs. before Secret Ballot’, Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, cxi (1959), 117; An Old Stager [J. Aspinall], Liverpool a Few Years Since (1852), 129-30.
  • 8. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 543; (1833), x. 194; Menzies, 86-87.
  • 9. Whittingham-Jones, 117-38; K. Moore, ‘Liverpool in Age of Popular Radicalism’, Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, cxxxviii (1989), 137-57; S.M. Lee, ‘Canning and Representation of Liverpool’, ibid. cxlix (2000), 89-93.
  • 10. W.O. Henderson, ‘Liverpool Office in London’, Economica, xiii (1933), 473-9; Muir and Platt, 134; Spectator, 2 Jan. 1831; R. Sweet, The English Town, 1680-1840, pp. 101, 106.
  • 11. J. Civin, ‘Slaves, sati and sugar: constructing imperial identity through Liverpool petition struggles’, in Parliaments, Nations and Identities in Britain and Ireland, 1660-1850 ed. J. Hoppit, 187-205.
  • 12. Harewood mss WYL 250/8/26, Canning to wife, 28 Jan. 1820.
  • 13. M. Harrison, Crowds and History, 226-7; J. Picton, Memorials of Liverpool (1875), i. 355-9; M. Lynn, ‘Trade and Politics in 19th Cent. Liverpool’, Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, cxlii (1993), 105, 109; St. Deiniol’s Lib. Glynne-Gladstone mss 319, Wallace to J. Gladstone, 20 July, 8 Sept.; The Times, 4, 16 Sept. 1819.
  • 14. Liverpool RO, Election Squib Bk. (1820), 3-5; Liverpool Mercury, 25 Feb.; Picton, Liverpool Municipal Recs. 297; Glynne-Gladstone mss 104, W. Ewart sen. to J. Gladstone, 3 Mar. 1820.
  • 15. Liverpool Mercury, 3 Mar. 1820; Picton, Mems. i. 363.
  • 16. Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 17 Feb.; J. Hughes, Liverpool Banks and Bankers (1906), 175-6; Liverpool Mercury, 3, 10 Mar.; Manchester Mercury, 14 Mar. 1820; W. Bean, Parl. Rep. Six Northern Counties, 311-12.
  • 17. Manchester Mercury, 14 Mar. 1820.
  • 18. Picton, Mems. i. 363; Election Squib Bk. 10-61.
  • 19. Manchester Mercury, 14 Mar. 1820.
  • 20. Liverpool Mercury, 10 Mar.; D.B. Rees, Local and Parliamentary Politics in Liverpool from 1800 to 1911 (Studies in British Hist. lv), 23; Picton, Mems. i. 370.
  • 21. Menzies, 96.
  • 22. Creevey mss.
  • 23. Add. 38568, f. 76; Liverpool Mercury, 17, 24 Mar.; The Times, 18 Mar.; Election Squib Bk. 62-124; Picton, Mems. i. 363-9.
  • 24. Add. 38568, f. 78; Picton, Mems. i. 369.
  • 25. Harewood mss 26, Canning to wife, 6 Apr. 1820.
  • 26. Glynne-Gladstone mss 128, H. to J. Gladstone, 8 Apr. 1820.
  • 27. Election Squib Bk. (1820), 128.
  • 28. CJ, lxxv. 167, 228, 346, 374; Glynne-Gladstone mss 104, Ewart to J. Gladstone, 3 Mar. 1820.
  • 29. Add. 38743, f. 1; Liverpool RO, Parliament Office mss 328/PAR2/88; PAR4/1; CJ, lxxvi. 245.
  • 30. Manchester New Coll. Oxford, William Shepherd mss vii. f. 5; CJ, lxxv. 253, 269, 275; The Times, 31 May 1820.
  • 31. CJ, lxxv. 121, 341, 366, 374; Glynne-Gladstone mss 1191; S. Horrocks, Lancs. Acts of Parl. 60.
  • 32. Picton, Mems. i. 370-1; CJ, lxxv. 203-4, 482.
  • 33. The Times, 11 Sept.; Liverpool Mercury, 24 Nov. 1820; Picton, Mems. i. 373; J. Belchem, Essays in Liverpool Hist. (2000), 106.
  • 34. The Times, 25, 30 Dec. 1820, 3 Feb. 1821; Picton, Mems. i. 375-6; CJ, lxxvi. 27.
  • 35. Glynne-Gladstone mss 319, Wallace to T. Gladstone, 25, 29 Nov., 16 Dec. 1820; Northumb. RO, Middleton mss ZMI/S76/31/6.
  • 36. CJ, lxxvi. 179, 304, 363, 416; lxxvii. 167. The Times, 20 Mar. 1821.
  • 37. CJ, lxxvi. 142, 179, 216, 313, 410; Glynne-Gladstone mss 319, T. and G. Gladstone to Wallace, 6 Aug., 5 Dec. 1821, 21 Jan., 8 Aug., 3, 17 Sept. 1822.
  • 38. CJ, lxxvi. 91, 95, 410; lxxvii. 77, 148, 161, 284, 306, 451, 485; Wellington mss WP1/734/5.
  • 39. LJ, lv. 177.
  • 40. CJ, lxxvii. 23, 63, 112, 135, 142, 161, 184, 276, 279, 281, 304, 335, 367; Horrocks, 62.
  • 41. PP (1821), iv. 203.
  • 42. Picton, Mems. i. 380-1.
  • 43. Liverpool Mercury, 1, 15 June 1821.
  • 44. NLW ms 2793 D, Mrs. H. to H. Williams Wynn, 17 Apr.; Liverpool Mercury, 19, 26 Oct. 1821; Picton, Mems. i. 379; S.G. Checkland, The Gladstones, 178.
  • 45. Preston Sentinel, 27 Oct. 1821.
  • 46. Huskisson Pprs. 124-7; Add. 38743, ff. 1-7.
  • 47. Parliament Office mss PAR3/14; Glynne-Gladstone mss 275, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 9, 21 Nov., 23, 28 Dec. 1823; Add. 38744, ff. 265-78, 293-330.
  • 48. Harewood mss 83, J. Gladstone to Canning, 2 Dec.; 84, Canning to J. Bolton, 1 Dec., 1821; Picton, Mems. i. 380; The Times, 26 Mar. 1822.
  • 49. Glynne-Gladstone mss 105, W. Ewart sen. to J. Gladstone, 26 Feb., reply 2 Mar. 1822.
  • 50. Glynne-Gladstone mss 105, W. Ewart sen. to J. Gladstone, 9, 16, 18, 19, 25, 17 Mar. 1822.
  • 51. Harewood mss 83, Canning to J. Gladstone, 31 May, 1 June; Glynne-Gladstone mss 105, W. Ewart sen. to same, 4, 5, 24 June; 198, Marlborough to same, 30 June; 275, Huskisson to same, 1 July 1822; Add. 38568, f. 115; 38743, ff. 154-66.
  • 52. The Times, 29 July, 9, 31 Aug., 2 Sept.; Liverpool Mercury, 30 Aug., 6 Sept.; Wheelers’ Manchester Chron. 31 Aug. 1822; Picton, Mems. ii. 381-4.
  • 53. Harewood mss 83, Canning to J. Gladstone, 14 Sept., replies, 18 Sept., 8 Oct. 1822.
  • 54. Lansdowne mss, Smith Stanley to Lansdowne, 20 Sept. 1822.
  • 55. Grey mss, Ellice to Grey, 24 Sept. 1822; Add. 38193, f. 171; 38291, f. 175; 38473, ff. 209, 294; 38575, ff. 34-57.
  • 56. Glynne-Gladstone mss 275, J. Gladstone to Huskisson, 26 Jan.; 319, Wallace to J. Gladstone, 6 Feb. 1823.
  • 57. Harewood mss 83, J. Gladstone to Canning, 21, 28 Jan.; Add. 38744, ff. 60-84, 107-16; Glynne-Gladstone mss 275, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 29 Jan. 1822; 1201; Huskisson Pprs. 160.
  • 58. The Times, 31 Dec. 1822; Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 29 Jan.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 275, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 6, 7 Feb.; Liverpool Mercury, 7, 14 Feb.; Harewood mss 84, Backhouse to Canning, 12 Feb. 1823; Add. 38744, ff. 121-30.
  • 59. Harewood mss 84; Huskisson Speeches (1831 edn.), iii. 647-72.
  • 60. Add. 38744, ff. 131-7; 51836, Sefton to Holland, undated; Harewood mss 83, Backhouse to Canning, 15 Feb.; The Times, 18, 19 Feb.; Liverpool Mercury, 21 Feb. 1823; G.S. Veitch, ‘Huskisson and Liverpool’, Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, lxxx (1928), 23, 26-28.
  • 61. Checkland, 177-8; Picton, Mems. i. 388-9, 391-2.
  • 62. Picton, Mems. i. 389-90, 394-5, 562-7, 572; A.S. Mountfield, ‘Liverpool Docks, the Municipal Commissioners’ Inquiry’, Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, cxv (1963), 163-4; A. Jarvis, ‘Interests and Ethics of John Foster, Liverpool Dock Surveyor’, ibid. cxl (1991), 155-6; Muir and Platt, 146-7; The Times, 16 Dec. 1824, 5 Feb. 1825; Parliament Office mss PAR3/29; Horrocks, 67-74.
  • 63. LJ, lv. 661; Checkland, 146; CJ, lxxviii. 304; Glynne-Gladstone mss 275, T. Booth to Huskisson, 8 July 1823.
  • 64. Glynne-Gladstone mss 275, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 3 Aug.; 1203; Liverpool Courier, 27 Aug.; The Times, 30 Aug. 1823.
  • 65. Parliament Office mss PAR1/8; PAR3/6, 7, 34; The Times, 8 Mar.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 275, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 23 Mar. 1823; CJ, lxxviii. 99, 104, 334, 400; lxxix. 427; lxxx. 343; LJ, lvii. 854; lviii. 293; Add. 38744, ff. 225-236; Horrocks, 63-70.
  • 66. Wheelers’ Manchester Chron. 1 Feb. 1823; HLRO, Thomas Greene mss GRE4/1-6; CJ, lxxviii. 387; lxxix. 173, 188, 265; LJ, lvi. 131; Parliament Office mss PAR3/38; The Times, 23 Mar., 2 Apr. 1824.
  • 67. Glynne-Gladstone mss 276, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 12 July, 9 Nov. 1824; 350; Parliament Office mss PAR3/23; CJ, lxxx. 14, 73, 121, 130, 147-8, 155, 179, 182, 190, 192, 197, 215, 224, 236, 318, 329, 335, 346, 368, 390, 466; Creevey Pprs. ii. 87-88.
  • 68. Parliament Office mss PAR3/24; CJ, lxxx. 12, 166, 359; lxxxi. 118, 122, 127, 133, 138, 143, 155, 164, 164, 174, 295, 313, 325, 327, 333; LJ, lviii. 293; Add. 38748, f. 17; Checkland, 172-5.
  • 69. Picton, Mems. i. 392; Add. 38744, ff. 255-64; Parliament Office mss PAR2/98; PAR3/29; Checkland, 149; CJ, lxxviii. 99, 104; lxxx. 111, 309; lxxxv. 455; The Times, 8, 11 Mar. 1823, 14 Mar. 1825.
  • 70. CJ, lxxviii. 131; lxxix. 157; LJ, lix. 444; Parliament Office mss PAR3/33.
  • 71. CJ, lxxv. 366; lxxix. 78, 81; lxxx. 111; lxxxi. 139; lxxviii. 231.
  • 72. K. Charlton, ‘James Cropper and Liverpool’s Contribution to the Anti-Slavery Movement’, Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, cxxiii (1971), 57-80; William Shepherd mss vii. ff. 10-20; CJ, lxxviii. 312; lxxxi. 367; lxxxiii. 412; Picton, Mems. i. 411.
  • 73. Glynne-Gladstone mss 275, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 2 Nov. 1823; 276, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 8 Feb. 1824; 353; 1194; Huskisson Pprs. 175-6; CJ, lxxvi. 305, 312; lxxvii. 148, 306; lxxviii. 331; lxxix. 404, 519; Civin, 193.
  • 74. CJ, lxxxi. 368.
  • 75. Picton, Mems. i. 386-90; The Times, 20 Feb., 7 June 1824; Checkland, 147, 151-4.
  • 76. CJ, lxxix. 179; lxxx. 363, 374; Parliament Office mss PAR3/26; The Times, 1 July 1825.
  • 77. The Times, 2 Apr., 28 June, 19 July; Liverpool Mercury, 10 June 1825; Picton, Mems. i. 397.
  • 78. T. Burke, Catholic Hist. Liverpool (1910), 33-44; G.I.T. Machin, Catholic Question in English Politics, 46; Liverpool Mercury, 8 Oct., 17 Dec. 1824; Lancaster Gazette, 28 Feb. 1829.
  • 79. Parliament Office mss PAR3/38; CJ, lxxx. 315, 384; lxxxii. 276; lxxxiii. 313; lxxxiv. 8, 76, 89, 141, 146, 154; LJ, liv. 438, 349; lvii. 814, 833; lviii. 342; lix.78; lx. 366; lxi. 61, 300, 337, 379 381; P.J. Waller, Democracy and Sectarianism, 11; Wellington mss WP1/1001/21; 1002/13; Albion, 9, 23 Feb., 9 Mar.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 278, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 11, 23 Feb.; Liverpool Chron. 14 Feb., 14, 28 Mar.; William Shepherd mss vii. f. 39; Liverpool Mercury, 20 Feb., 2, 9 Apr. 1829.
  • 80. CJ, lxxix. 404; lxxx. 343; Picton, Mems. i. 393-4.
  • 81. Huskisson Pprs. 181-5; Parliament Office mss PAR3/39, 43; CJ, lxxx. 344; LJ, lvii. 658.
  • 82. CJ, lxxxi. 235; Manchester Mercury, 9 May 1826.
  • 83. Picton, Mems. i. 395-6; The Times, 26 Jan., 1, 2 Feb.; Liverpool Commercial Chron. 4 Feb. 1826; Hughes, 202-4, 216.
  • 84. Hughes, 32.
  • 85. Liverpool Mercury, 26 May; Liverpool Commercial Chron. 27 May 1826.
  • 86. Arbuthnot Jnl. ii. 17, 20, 26; Huskisson Pprs. 186-7; Creevey Pprs. ii. 99; Add. 51584, Tierney to Holland, 10 Apr.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 276, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 30 May 1826.
  • 87. The Times, 2, 5 June 1826.
  • 88. Picton, Mems. i. 398-9; Leeds Mercury, 11 Mar.; The Times, 5 June 1826.
  • 89. T. Touchstone, True and Wonderful History of Dick Liver (1824); J. Nedgo, Chartered Rights of the Burgesses of Liverpool (1824); J. Scott-Walker Liverpool in 1825, A Satire; Manchester Mercury, 23 May; Liverpool Mercury, 2 June; Bolton Express, 17 June 1826.
  • 90. Liverpool Mercury, 9, 16 June; The Times, 14 June 1826; Add. 38748, f. 40; Picton, Mems. i. 400.
  • 91. Harewood mss 84, Huskisson to Canning, 12 June; Lonsdale mss, Holmes to Lowther, 13 June; The Times, 14 June; Bolton Express, 17 June 1826.
  • 92. The Times, 31 Oct. 1825; Liverpool Mercury, 16 June 1826.
  • 93. Harewood mss 84, Huskisson to Canning, 12 June; Parliament Office mss PAR3/67.
  • 94. Glynne-Gladstone mss 276.
  • 95. The Times, 17, 19 June, 21 Aug.; Billinge’s Liverpool Advertiser, 20 June; Wellington mss WP1/858/11; Harewood mss 84, Huskisson to Canning, 22 Aug. 1826; Huskisson Pprs. 204-7.
  • 96. CJ, lxxvii. 12, 43, 48, 73, 171, 268, 338, 392, 411, 433, 495; lxxiv. 6, 32, 69, 177, 196, 220-1, 249, 279; LJ, lix. 318, 344, 393, 450; Horrocks, 70-74.
  • 97. Liverpool Commercial Chron. 21 Oct.; The Times, 17 Nov. 1826; CJ, lxxxii. 292-3, 305.
  • 98. LJ, lix. 63.
  • 99. Albion, 26 Feb., 30 Apr. 1827.
  • 100. Lonsdale mss, Becket to Lowther, 27 Oct.; The Times, 14 Nov. 1826; Glynne-Gladstone mss 277, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 19 Apr. 1827.
  • 101. Glynne-Gladstone mss 123, Gascoyne to J. Gladstone, 9 May; 194, T. Gladstone to same, 17, 22 Feb.; 277, Huskisson to same, 8 May 1827; CJ, lxxxii. 430; Nottingham Univ. Lib. Denison diary, 3, 7 May; Albion, 7, 14, 21 May, 4, 11 June 1827.
  • 102. Albion, 25 June 1827.
  • 103. Liverpool Mercury, 11 May; The Times, 11 May, 21 June 1827.
  • 104. Picton, Mems. i. 406; Albion, 13, 20 Aug., 3 Sept.; The Times, 24 Aug. 1827.
  • 105. Glynne-Gladstone mss 277, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 11, 17 May 1827; Checkland, 159.
  • 106. Glynne-Gladstone mss 277, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 5, 16 Sept.; The Times, 17, 21 Sept.; Albion, 15 Oct. 1827; Add. 38751, f. 20; Parliament Office mss PAR3/73, 74.
  • 107. Picton, Mems. i. 407-9; Liverpool Commercial Chron. 13, 20, 27 Oct.; The Times, 22, 24, 26 Oct., 1 Nov.; Albion, 22, 29 Oct., 5 Nov. 1827, 7 Jan. 1828.
  • 108. TNA 30/29/9/3/33; Liverpool Chron. 12 Jan.; Add. 38754, f. 114.
  • 109. Albion, 21, 28 Jan., 4 Feb.; The Times, 1, 2 Feb. 1828.
  • 110. Parliament Office mss PAR3/78; Brougham mss, Brougham to Shepherd [1828]; Add. 40395, ff. 208, 222; Greville Mems. i. 204, 359; Rees, 35; The Times, 6, 7 Feb.; Albion, 11 Feb. 1828.
  • 111. Keele Univ. Lib. Sneyd mss SC12/84; Liverpool Chron. 19 Feb.; The Times, 21, 26 Feb.; Albion, 25 Feb. 1828; Ellenborough Diary, i. 20-21; Wellington mss WP1/920/34; Add. 38755, ff. 66, 80, 84, 87, 101-12.
  • 112. William Shepherd mss iv. f. 89.
  • 113. CJ, lxxxiii. 12, 31, 38, 170.
  • 114. Ibid. 414; The Times, 10 June; Albion, 16 June 1828.
  • 115. Parliament Office mss PAR3/70, 71; CJ, lxxxii. 472, 545, 555; lxxxiii. 95-96, 101; LJ, lx. 63, 67, 68 Picton, Mems. i. 411; Rees, 35.
  • 116. CJ, lxxxiii. 31, 38 53, 95, 173, 184, 202-3, 241, 253, 286, 309, 318, 375, 419, 482; lxxxiv. 159, 232, 296.
  • 117. Albion, 26 May, 2, 9 June; Liverpool Chron. 7 June 1828; Glynne-Gladstone mss 277, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 16 June 1828.
  • 118. Liverpool Chron. 21 June; Albion, 23 June 1828.
  • 119. The Times, 10 Oct. 1828.
  • 120. Liverpool Chron. 10, 17, 24, 31 Jan.; Albion, 12, 19 Jan. 1829; CJ, lxxxiv. 243, 282.
  • 121. Albion, 26 Jan., 2 Feb. Liverpool Chron. 7 Feb. 1829; CJ, lxxxiv. 289, 388.
  • 122. Parliament Office mss PAR3/104, 105; Albion, 17, 31 Aug.; The Times, 17, 24 Aug. 1829.
  • 123. Glynne-Gladstone mss 278, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 11, 15, 20, 24, 29 June, 6 July, replies, 17, 20, 25 June, 2 July 1828; 355.
  • 124. Albion, 24 Aug. 1829.
  • 125. CJ, lxxxv. 165, 235, 242, 512, 590; LJ, lxii. 165, 182-4; Picton, Mems. i. 416-7; Liverpool Chron. 6 Feb.; Albion, 15 Feb. 1830; Civin, 193, 199-203.
  • 126. Albion, 29 June, 17 Aug. 1829; CJ, lxxxiv. 270, 337.
  • 127. Picton, Municipal Recs. 301, 319-20; Derby mss 920 Der (14) 63, Berrow to Smith Stanley, 22 May, 11 June 1829; Cheshire and Chester Archives QCX1/2; CJ, lxxxv. 432; LJ, lxii. 869.
  • 128. Picton, Mems. i. 414; Liverpool Chron. 26 Sept., 3, 17, 24 Oct.; Liverpool Mercury, 16, 23 Oct. 1829.
  • 129. Picton, Mems. i. 416; Parliament Office mss PAR3/114, 115, 118; CJ, lxxxv. 442.
  • 130. Liverpool Chron. 6 Feb.; Albion, 8, 15 Feb., 1 Mar. 1830.
  • 131. PP (1828), iv. 209, 217-18; Albion, 1, 15 Mar. 1830; CJ, lxxxvii. 439.
  • 132. CJ, lxxxv. 139, 165, 220, 270, 365, 432-3, 487; LJ, lxxii. 104; Glynne-Gladstone mss 195, T. to J. Gladstone, 5 May 1830; Parliament Office mss PAR3/124; PAR7/119.
  • 133. CJ, lxxxv. 7, 25, 29, 92, 245, 247, 279, 366, 403, 455, 509, 519, 591, 657; Add. 38758, f. 76.
  • 134. CJ, lxxxv. 122, 432.
  • 135. Parliament Office mss PAR3/76, 81, 99, 106; CJ, lxxxv. 331, 505, 572; LJ, lxii. 479.
  • 136. Grey mss, Howick jnl. 21, 22 June 1830.
  • 137. CJ, lxxxv. 451.
  • 138. Albion, 5 July; Hatfield House mss bdle. 3, Leigh to Salisbury, 9 July 1830.
  • 139. Hatfield House mss bdle. 3, Leigh to Salisbury, 23 July 1830.
  • 140. Lancaster Gazette, 24, 31 July; Manchester Guardian, 7, 14 Aug. 1830.
  • 141. Liverpool RO, Huskisson mss 920 Hus/1-4; Nottingham Univ. Lib. Ossington mss OsC 75; Glynne-Gladstone mss 195, T. to J. Gladstone, 20, 22, 27 July 1830.
  • 142. Liverpool Chron. 24 July; Albion, 26 July 1830.
  • 143. Huskisson Pprs. 321-4; Huskisson mss 920 Hus/4-6b.
  • 144. Glynne-Gladstone mss 195, T. to J. Gladstone, 22 July, R. Gladstone to same, 2 Aug.; Albion, 12 July; The Times, 4 Aug.; Liverpool Chron. 7, 14 Aug. 1830; Brock, 28; Picton, Municipal Recs. 322-6; The Times, 6 July 1831, 24 May, 20 June 1832.
  • 145. Add. 38758, f. 220.
  • 146. Hatfield House mss bdle. 3.
  • 147. Huskisson mss 8; Wellington mss WP1/1128/7; 1132/3; 1133/26; 1134/41; 1139/2.
  • 148. Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 15 Aug.; Hatherton mss, Huskisson to Littleton, 29 Aug.; TNA 30/29/9/3/43, 44; Glynne-Gladstone mss 196, T. to J. Gladstone, 13 Sept. 1830; Greville Mems. ii. 45.
  • 149. Picton, Mems. i. 418-20; Wellington mss WP1/1141/32; 1143/45; Aberdeen Univ. lib. Arbuthnot mss 3029/1/2/17; The Times, 17, 18 Sept.; Northants. RO, Agar Ellis diary, 17 Sept.; Add. 51590, Agar Ellis to Lady Holland, 20 Sept.; Albion, 20, 27 Sept. 1830.
  • 150. Glynne-Gladstone mss 243.
  • 151. Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham [30 Sept.], 4 Oct.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 196, T to J. Gladstone, 2 Oct.; 243, Grant to same, 30 Sept. 1830.
  • 152. Glynne-Gladstone mss 196, T. to J. Gladstone, 17, 18, 28 Sept., 1, 27 Oct.; 243, Grant to same, 1 Oct.; Add. 40401, f. 256; Albion, 27 Sept.; Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham [30 Sept.], 4 Oct. 1830.
  • 153. Brougham mss, Smith Stanley to Brougham, 2 Oct.; Derby mss Der (14) 116/1, Brougham to Smith Stanley [two letters, n.d.]; 116/6, Winstanley to Smith Stanley, 28 Nov. 1830.
  • 154. Glynne-Gladstone mss 243, Grant to J. Gladstone, 28 Sept.; Add. 51580, Carlisle to Lady Holland, 2 Oct.; Brougham mss, Smith Stanley to Brougham, 2 Oct., Shepherd to same, 4 Oct.; Hopetoun mss 167, f. 173; TNA 30/29/9/6/70; Picton, Mems. i. 421.
  • 155. Southampton Univ. Lib. Broadlands mss, Palmerston to C. Grant, 25 Sept.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 243, Grant to J. Gladstone, 28 Sept.; The Times, 6 Oct. 1830.
  • 156. Gore’s General Advertiser, 7 Oct.; Albion, 11 Oct. 1830; Add. 40401, ff. 235, 238, 241.
  • 157. The Times, 11 Oct.; Glynne Gladstone mss 243, Grant to J. Gladstone, 13 Oct.; Gore’s General Advertiser, 14 Oct.; Albion, 18 Oct. 1830.
  • 158. Hatfield House mss bdle. 3, Leigh to Salisbury, 6, 13 Oct., 30 Nov. 1830.
  • 159. Liverpool Chron. 23 Oct.; Gore’s Weekly Advertiser, 24 Oct.; Albion, 25 Oct. 1830.
  • 160. Albion, 1 Nov.; Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 1 Nov.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 243, Grant to J. Gladstone, 19 Nov. 1830.
  • 161. Glynne-Gladstone mss 243, Grant to J. Gladstone, 27 Oct.; 2871; Add. 40401, f. 256.
  • 162. Liverpool Chron. 6, 13, 20 Nov.; Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 20 Nov. 1830.
  • 163. Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 1 Nov.; Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale [1 Nov.]; Hopetoun mss 167, f. 189.
  • 164. Liverpool RO, Election Squib Bk. (Nov. 1830) ed. Metcalfe, 3-32.
  • 165. Derby mss Der (13) 1/161/25, 26; Glynne-Gladstone mss 243, Grant to J. Gladstone, 26 Nov.; Hatfield House mss bdle. 3, Leigh to Salisbury, 30 Nov.; Hopetoun mss 167, f. 199; Lord W.P. Lennox, Drafts on my Memory, ii. 353-60; Croker Pprs. ii. 80; [J. Stonehouse], Recollections of Old Liverpool by a Nonagenarian, 76-83; Gore’s Weekly Advertiser, 25 Nov.; The Times, 29, 30 Nov. 1830.
  • 166. Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 27 Nov. 1830.
  • 167. Hatherton mss, Denison to Littleton, 18 Nov.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 243, Grant to J. Gladstone, 26, 30 Nov.; Gore’s Weekly Advertiser, 2 Dec. 1830.
  • 168. Liverpool RO, Roscoe mss 920/3282.
  • 169. Gore’s Weekly Advertiser, 2 Dec. 1830; PP (1830), iii. 8-11; Glynne-Gladstone mss 244, Grant to J. Gladstone, 22 Mar. 1831.
  • 170. Glynne-Gladstone mss 243, R. to J. Gladstone, 30 Nov. 1830.
  • 171. Ibid. Grant to J. Gladstone, 30 Nov., 4 Dec.; Greville Mems. ii. 76-77; Liverpool Chron. 4 Dec.; Albion, 6 Dec.; CUL, William Smith mss Add. 7621/144, Smith to G. Nicholson, 15 Dec. 1830; R. Moody, Mr. Bennet of Wiltshire, 208.
  • 172. Checkland, 233-4; Liverpool Pollbook (Nov. 1830) ed. J. Gore, p. lviii.
  • 173. PP (1830-1), iii. 304, 417-18.
  • 174. Bodl. Ms. Eng. Lett. c. 160, f. 256. J.R. Vincent, Pollbooks, 136 replicates errors in the pollbook in IHR.
  • 175. Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 16 Dec. 1830; Gore’s General Advertiser, 6 Jan. 1831; Croker Pprs. ii. 106.
  • 176. Glynne-Gladstone mss 196, T. to J. Gladstone, 13, 16 Dec. 1830; 197, same to same, 7 Feb., 17, 18, 23, 24 Mar. 1831; 243, Grant to same, 4, 17 Dec. 1830.
  • 177. CJ, lxxxvi. 169, 197, 392, 397, 400, 441; Albion, 20 Dec. 1830; Liverpool Chron. 8, 15 Jan. 1831; PP (1830-1), iii. 311-418.
  • 178. Glynne-Gladstone mss 244, Grant to J. Gladstone, 27, 29 Mar. 1831.
  • 179. Ibid. 103, J. Gladstone to Denison, 3 Apr. 1831.
  • 180. CJ, lxxxvi. 193. Liverpool Chron. 1 Jan.; Albion, 3 Jan.; Liverpool Mercury, 28 Jan. 1831.
  • 181. Glynne-Gladstone mss 103, Denison to J. Gladstone, 12 Mar. 1831.
  • 182. CJ, lxxxvi. 458, 493, 516; Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 21 Apr. 1831.
  • 183. Add. 40340, f. 246; Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 18, 28 Feb.; 244, Grant to same, 23 Apr. 1831.
  • 184. Liverpool Chron. 22 Jan.; Manchester Herald, 9 Feb. 1831.
  • 185. Glynne-Gladstone mss 196, T. to J. Gladstone, 13, 18 Dec. 1830 and undated; CJ, lxxxvi. 160, 167, 175-6, 444-5, 454-5; LJ, lxiii. 86, 483.
  • 186. Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 5, 7, 8 Feb.; Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 8 Feb. 1831.
  • 187. Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 21 Feb.; Parliament Office mss PAR7/127; Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 23 Feb., 1 Mar.; L. Brown, Board of Trade and Free Trade Movement, 53; CJ, lxxxvi. 372, 395, 397.
  • 188. Gore’s General Advertiser, 20 Jan. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 248, 285, 319, 333, 337, 345, 371, 380, 395, 401, 418, 464,490, 498, 517; LJ, lxiii. 234.
  • 189. Liverpool Chron. 1, 8 Jan. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 310; LJ, lxiii. 262; Picton, Mems. i. 426.
  • 190. Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 2 Mar. 1831.
  • 191. Liverpool Chron. 5, 12 Mar.; The Times, 7 Mar.; CJ, lxxxvi. 372; Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 14 Mar.; 244, Grant to J. Gladstone, 4 Mar. 1831.
  • 192. Parliament Office mss PAR7/128; Liverpool Chron. 8 Jan.; Albion, 21, 28 Mar.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 454, T. Gladstone to G. Canning, 24, 26 Mar. 1831.
  • 193. Parliament Office mss PAR7/127; The Times, 21 Mar.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 22 Mar.; Gore’s General Advertiser, 24 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 477; William Shepherd mss vii. f. 51; Picton, Mems. i. 429.
  • 194. Glynne-Gladstone mss 198, T. to J. Gladstone, 22 Apr.; 244, Grant to J. Gladstone, 23 Apr.; Derby mss Der (14) 116/6, Winstanley to Smith Stanley, 25 Apr.; Gore’s General Advertiser, 28 Apr.; Liverpool Chron. 30 Apr. 1831; Cornw. RO, Johnstone mss DD/J/2142/6; Picton, Mems. i. 429; N. LoPatin, ‘Political Unions and the Great Reform Act’, PH, x (1991), 112.
  • 195. Glynne-Gladstone mss 198, T. to J. Gladstone, 3 May; Manchester Herald, 4 May; Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham [1831].
  • 196. Glynne-Gladstone mss 244, Grant to J. Gladstone, 2 May; Hatfield House mss bdle. 4, Leigh to Salisbury, 2 May; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 2 May; The Times, 4 May 1831.
  • 197. Gore’s General Advertiser, 5 May; Liverpool Chron. 7 May 1831.
  • 198. Brougham mss, Ewart to Brougham, 3 May 1831.
  • 199. Hatfield House mss 2M/Gen., Leigh to Salisbury, 3 May, Arbuthnot to same, 5 May; Glynne-Gladstone mss 244, Grant to J. Gladstone, 3 May 1831.
  • 200. Glynne-Gladstone mss 244, Grant to J. Gladstone, 4 May; The Times, 5, 7 May; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 6 May; Grey mss, C. Grant to Grey, 7 May 1831.
  • 201. Brougham mss, Brougham to Shepherd and reply [May]; Glynne-Gladstone mss 244, Grant to J. Gladstone, 2 May 1831.
  • 202. Glynne-Gladstone mss 244, Grant to J. Gladstone, 6-8, 10 May; Grey mss, C. Grant to Grey, 6 May, Smith Stanley to Grey, 22 May, reply, 27 May; Derby mss 920 Der (14) 116/9, A. Hodgson to Smith Stanley, 9 May; The Times, 10 May; Manchester Herald, 11, 18 May; Brougham mss, Ellice to Brougham [17 May], Shepherd to same, n.d.; Hatfield House mss bdle. 4, Leigh to Salisbury, 28 May 1831.
  • 203. Derby mss Der (14) 116/9, A. Hodgson to Smith Stanley, 28 May; Harrowby mss, Grey to Sandon, 15 June; Add. 51566, Derby to Holland [June]; Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham [1831].
  • 204. Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham [1831]; Picton, Mems. i. 433.
  • 205. The Times, 4 June; Add. 51836, Stanley to Holland, 8 June; Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 12 June 1831.
  • 206. Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 12 June 1831.
  • 207. Hatherton mss, Palmerston to Littleton, 14 May; Hatfield House mss bdle. 4, Leigh to Salisbury, 28 May; Add. 51836, Stanley to Holland, 8 June; The Times, 10 June; Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 21 June; Harrowby mss, Sandon to Grey, 3 July 1831.
  • 208. The Times, 10 June 1831.
  • 209. Liverpool Mercury, 1, 15 Apr., 1, 8, 15 July; Manchester Herald, 13 July 1831.
  • 210. William Shepherd mss, vii. f. 53; CJ, lxxxvi. 624-5, 633, 792, 797, 821; Moody, 213.
  • 211. Picton, Municipal Recs. 302 and Mems. i. 448-9.
  • 212. The Times, 21 Sept. 1831; LJ, lxiii. 1026, 1045; Picton, Mems. i. 437; Hatfield House mss bdle. 4, Leigh to Salisbury, 5 Oct. 1831.
  • 213. CJ, lxxxvi. 908-9.
  • 214. Picton, Municipal Recs. 331-2.
  • 215. Gore’s General Advertiser, 13 Oct. 1831.
  • 216. Liverpool Mercury, 14, 21 Oct.; Manchester Herald, 26 Oct.1831.
  • 217. Derby mss 920 Der (14) 127/3, Sandon to Smith Stanley, 12, 16, 18 Oct.; Gore’s Liverpool Advertiser, 20 Oct.; Brougham mss, Shepherd to Brougham, 23 Oct. 1831, and reply, n.d.
  • 218. The Times, 22 Oct. 1831.
  • 219. Picton, Mems. i. 438-9; Brock, 329; Gore’s General Advertiser, 27 Oct. 1831.
  • 220. Brougham mss.
  • 221. Picton, Mems. i. 439.
  • 222. Glynne-Gladstone mss 1989.
  • 223. The Times, 24, 28 Nov.; Sheffield Archives, Wharncliffe mss WhM/516/10-12; 693/960; Checkland, 236-7; Brock, 263; Picton, Mems. i. 440-1.
  • 224. TNA HO52/13, f. 274; The Times, 14 Dec.; Liverpool Mercury, 16 Dec. 1831.
  • 225. Hatfield House mss bdle. 4, Leigh to Salisbury, 5 Jan.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 199, T. to J. Gladstone, 6, 9, 11 Feb.; Albion, 26 Mar. 1832.
  • 226. Albion, 6, 13 Feb.; Lancaster Gazette, 3 Mar. 1832; Parliament Office mss PAR7/134.
  • 227. The Times, 28 Nov. 1831, 19 Mar. 1832.
  • 228. Liverpool Mercury, 12 Aug. 1831; Albion, 5, 12 Mar. 1832.
  • 229. William Shepherd mss vii. f. 57.
  • 230. The Times, 11, 16 May; Albion, 14 May 1832; CJ, lxxxvii. 314; Picton, Mems. i. 443.
  • 231. William Shepherd mss vii. f. 87.
  • 232. The Times, 30 May, 12 June 1832; CJ, lxxxvii. 423.
  • 233. CJ, lxxxvii. 71, 74, 84, 128, 160, 201, 217, 236, 243, 269, 302, 314, 334, 336, 338, 355, 381, 436, 461; PP (1831-2), xxvi. 515.
  • 234. The Times, 6, 11 Sept. 1832.
  • 235. CJ, lxxxvii. 59, 331.
  • 236. Ibid. lxxxvi. 547-8, 580, 599, 663, 712; lxxxvii. 19, 25, 73, 75, 99, 116, 219 85, 95, 125 144, 219; LJ, lxiii. 881, 937; Horrocks, 75-77.
  • 237. CJ, lxxxvi. 593, 858; lxxxvii. 151; LJ, lxiii. 796.
  • 238. Glynne-Gladstone mss 103, Denison to J. Gladstone, 16 July 1831; William Shepherd mss vii. f. 87.
  • 239. CJ, lxxxvi. 758, 820, 897.
  • 240. Ibid. 903; lxxxvii. 103, 292, 521; LJ, lxiv. 322.
  • 241. Charlton, 70-72; CJ, lxxxvii. 200, 424, 513, 524; LJ, lxiv. 342.
  • 242. Glynne-Gladstone mss 307, Sandon to J. Gladstone, 23 July 1832; CJ, lxxxvii. 530.
  • 243. PP (1835), xxvi. 618-20, 636; (1833), x. 407; N. Gash, Politics in Age of Peel, 154-6; J. Phillips, Great Reform Bill in the Boroughs, 31.
  • 244. The Times, 21, 22, Nov., 5, 13-15 Dec. Albion, 26 Nov., 17 Dec.; Gore’s General Advertiser, 13 Dec. 1832; Parliament Office mss PAR7/165-7.
  • 245. PP (1833), x. 1-407; Picton, Mems. i. 448-51.
  • 246. Moody, 228-9; PP (1835), xxvi. 665-72.
  • 247. K. Moore, ‘"This Whig and Tory Ridden Town": Popular Politics in Liverpool during the Chartist era’, in Essays in Liverpool History ed. J. Belchem, 38-67; R. Dye, ‘Catholic Protectionism or Irish Nationalism? Religion and Politics in Liverpool, 1829-1845’, JBS, xl (2001), 357-90; Rees, 49-69.