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 and inhabitants paying scot and lot

Estimated number qualified to vote:

rising from about 900 in 1820 to over 1,700 in 18311

Number of voters:

1,018 in 1831


13,353 (1821); 19,324(1831)


 Abel Rous Dottin472
13 Jan. 1830JAMES BARLOW HOY vice Chamberlayne, deceased437
 John Story Penleaze175
 James Barlow Hoy391

Main Article

Addressing the electors in 1826, Abel Rous Dottin recalled his first visit to Southampton some 30 years earlier, when

it was, compared with its present appearance, little better than a village. Now, it was one of the most elegant towns in England; its commerce had improved; it was brilliantly lit with gas ... Majestic steam vessels were seen floating on their beautiful river, magnificent baths were erecting [and] rows of elegant buildings were rising round the town and its vicinity.2

The population of Southampton doubled between 1811 and 1831, as it underwent rapid development as a port and enjoyed a new lease of life as a fashionable resort. Horse races were revived in 1822 and the regatta in 1826, while the new baths to which Dottin referred opened in 1829.3 The town, which had been a county of itself since ‘a remote period’, was governed by an annually elected mayor, recorder, sheriff and two bailiffs. They and former office-holders comprised the ‘common council’ of the corporation, which in 1835 consisted of 20 resident ‘serving burgesses’ (or freemen) and about 160 non-resident, largely honorary burgesses. Although the reform bill returns insisted that not all of the latter enjoyed the elective franchise, the 1835 municipal corporations commissioners reported that ‘at no great distance of time, burgesses certainly were made for the purpose of creating votes’, but could give ‘no satisfactory reason’ why this had not happened to a greater extent.4 There were 64 such creations between 1820 and 1832, but although the out-voters nearly swung the 1820 contest, thereafter they were increasingly outnumbered by the scot and lot voters.5 The most powerful influence in the borough was that of money and it is perhaps no coincidence that three of the five Members who sat during this period died in financial difficulties. (The treasury interest had once been dominant, but in 1818 their remaining nominee had been defeated by two opposition candidates, Sir William Champion De Crespigny of Anspach House, Southampton, and William Chamberlayne of nearby Weston Park, whose return at a by-election earlier in the year had been secured with the reputed assistance of a Dissenting cabal.)6 According to several witnesses before a Commons committee, outright bribery and treating reached their zenith at the 1830 by-election.7

At the 1820 general election both Members offered again. The local press was justifiably sceptical of the rumoured candidacy of William Cobbett†, once a neighbour of Chamberlayne at Botley, but talk of an unopposed return was cut short by the early canvass of Dottin, ministerialist Member for Gatton in the previous Parliament, who had recently taken up residence in the town at Bugle Hall. His pledge to go to a poll appears to have put off another rumoured contender, William Alexander Mackinnon* of nearby Portswood House, lately Member for Dunwich.8 George Tierney, the Whig leader in the Commons, feared for the safety of De Crespigny, but as a newspaper report had anticipated, it was between Dottin and Chamberlayne that a ‘severe contest’ developed.9 Dottin led by 18 at the close of the second day, but the gap had narrowed to one by the end of the fourth. Next day Chamberlayne established a lead of 15, but after seven days his advantage had shrunk to a single vote, at which point Dottin, having apparently polled all his voters, withdrew.10 Analysis of the pollbook belies the appearance of clear battle lines. Of the 844 who polled, 310 (37 per cent) supported the two victorious Whigs, 244 (29 per cent) split their votes between De Crespigny and Dottin, while 106 (13 per cent) chose the incongruous pairing of Dottin and Chamberlayne.11 Of the 184 voters (22 per cent) who cast single votes, 122 plumped for Dottin, 57 for Chamberlayne and five for De Crespigny. The honorary burgesses, some of whom had reportedly travelled from as far afield as France, Jersey and Wales, accounted for six per cent of the total poll and demonstrated a marked preference for Dottin, with almost half giving him a plumper. Ironically, it was the sitting Members’ status as resident voters that saved the day for Chamberlayne. He cast his own vote for himself and De Crespigny, who returned the favour with a plumper for his beleaguered colleague. (The closeness of the result lent significance to other minor incidents, including the rejection of a scot and lot vote for Dottin after a lengthy legal wrangle and the alleged intimidation of one out-voter, who at the last minute abandoned his intention to poll for Dottin.)12 A handbill’s reference to Chamberlayne as ‘the Pope’s envoy extraordinary’ suggests that Catholic relief (to which Dottin was opposed) may have been an issue, but it was electoral malpractice that formed the basis of most of the charges and countercharges in the surviving handbills.13 Chamberlayne made ‘forcible remarks’ on Dottin’s activities in his victory speech and his final address proclaimed a triumph ‘over the foulest corruption that was ever practised in the most corrupt borough’.14 Charles Marett, a local attorney and Chamberlayne supporter, threatened legal action against unnamed proponents of bribery and challenged the authors of counterallegations to produce evidence in a broadside, 20 Mar. 1820.15 This was probably intended to deter a petition, which had been hinted at in a squib urging gamblers to wait on the settlement of bets on the election.16 In the event none materialized and Dottin instead concentrated on cultivating the electorate through widely publicized acts of beneficence and charitable works.

Dinners were held to celebrate the return of Chamberlayne, 24 Mar., 14 Sept., and De Crespigny, 9 Nov. 1820.17 Only the latter attended a meeting to offer condolence and congratulation to George IV, 27 Mar., Chamberlayne having apparently confused the date.18 A requisition for an illumination was passed to the mayor following the collapse of the case against Queen Caroline, 11 Nov., but the corporation itself voted a loyal address to the king, which received ‘numerous respectable signatures’, 23 Nov. A congratulatory address to the queen was signed by over 2,000 and the witnesses against her were burnt in effigy, 29 Nov 1820.19 A petition for mitigation of the criminal code, which originated at a meeting, 1 Mar., was presented by De Crespigny, 17 May 1821.20 The coronation was marked by a corporation dinner at the audit house and a public ball and supper in the Long Rooms, a society meeting place lately taken over by De Crespigny as a public spirited gesture.21 In the autumn of 1821 the town was lit by gas, for which Chamberlayne provided the lamp stands.22 A cast-iron pillar was raised by the corporation to mark this act of generosity, but its location at the entrance to the town became a cause of complaint and a subscription to light it foundered. In 1829 it was moved to the quay, where it became a landmark for sailors.23 In another ill-fated commemorative act, the corporation struck a medal to celebrate the king’s visit in August 1823, which never took place. An address was sent to him nonetheless and Chamberlayne warmly praised the workmanship of the souvenir at a subsequent dinner.24 At an ill-tempered meeting on slavery in January 1824, Chamberlayne threw his weight behind an uncompromisingly hostile petition from Dissenters and was accused by Francis Love Beckford of Basing, hitherto one of his leading supporters, of being an incorrigible oppositionist. Although a resolution was eventually carried deploring the agitation of the question, a petition against the treatment of John Smith, the Methodist missionary accused of inciting slave riots in Demerara, found its way to the Commons, 15 June 1824.25

The poor health of both Members that autumn prompted talk of a candidacy by Dottin, and an unidentified ‘Mr. Home’ and ‘Mr. H.W. Wilson’. In November 1824 De Crespigny, who had suffered from recurrent bouts of sickness, indicated that he would not offer again.26 De Crespigny spoke at an inhabitants’ meeting against the house and window taxes, 12 Feb., and presented the resulting petition, 25 Feb. 1825.27 Next month the press reported that Mackinnon had embarked on a canvass, ‘but we have not heard with what success’.28 (This was presumably the target of Chamberlayne’s jocular hustings reference in 1826 to a gentleman of implied Scottish origin making furtive and futile overtures to electors in the street.)29 Anticipating the retirement of both Members during the rumours of a dissolution in September 1825, the press predicted the return of Dottin, ‘in whose praise all classes of individuals speak in the highest admiration’. Mackinnon was also mentioned, along with ‘a spirited young nobleman’, tentatively identified as Lord Carnarvon’s son Lord Porchester, who later came in for Wootton Bassett, and an ‘H. Mildmay’, who was probably either Henry St. John Carew St. John Mildmay, former Member for Winchester, or his brother Humphrey St. John Mildmay, who sat for Southampton, 1841-7.30 In April 1826, however, it was announced by Beckford that Chamberlayne, with whom he had apparently made up, would certainly offer again, though an address warned that his physical condition might preclude a full canvass.31 Petitions for the abolition of slavery reached the Lords, 11 May, and the Commons, 19 May 1826.32

At the 1826 general election De Crespigny retired, likening himself to a dying swan and making a pointed reference to his colleague’s shyness of intervening in debate in an emotional valedictory speech. Dottin came forward for the vacancy. On the hustings Chamberlayne’s proposer dwelt on his Whig credentials and efforts to secure the prosperity of the town, asserting that ‘when a neighbouring port tried to steal our trade, he opened wide his purse strings ... From the death of a poor man’s pig to the building of a church, his name was ever foremost in the [subscription] list’. Chamberlayne spoke in support of reduced taxation and, in response to questions, indicated general support for Catholic relief, though without guaranteeing his future conduct. Dottin, who signalled his continued hostility to this measure, praised the foreign policy of the Liverpool ministry and their domestic record, by which ‘taxation was lessened, juries were consolidated, and the hydra-headed monster, radicalism, had received is death blow’. The Members were returned unopposed.33 Chamberlayne gave away 40 hogsheads of beer to mark the occasion and both sets of supporters held celebratory dinners.34 Thereafter Chamberlayne, who was by now suffering from an ‘accumulation of infirmities’, made no impression at Westminster or locally.35 Dottin gave a spectacular ball at Bugle Hall in February 1827 and was named as a patron of the town’s theatre, the revived regatta and a new picture gallery.36 The sympathetic Hampshire Advertiser rebutted criticism of his decision to remain in London during the Easter recess of 1827, but having missed the previous year’s event through illness, he attended the mayor’s dinner that September.37 He continued to make conspicuous gestures of poor relief.38 Petitions from Dissenters for repeal of the Test Acts reached the Commons, 30 May, 12 June 1827, 21, 22 Feb., and the Lords, 25 Feb., 1 Apr. 1828.39 Anti-slavery petitions were presented to the Lords, 18 July 1828, 24 May 1830, and the Commons, 25 July 1828.40 One against the Wellington ministry’s concession of Catholic emancipation, which its promoter later claimed had 2,085 signatures, reached the Lords, 3 Mar. 1829, and was presented by Dottin next day.41 A favourable counter-petition signed by one nobleman, six magistrates, three Protestant ministers and 522 tradesmen was presented to the Commons by William Sturges Bourne of nearby Testwood, 9 Mar. 1829, and to the Lords the following day.42 Only Dottin was present to vote against the measure.

The death of Chamberlayne in December 1829 created a vacancy, for which a bitter struggle ensued. First in the field was John Story Penleaze of Bossington, who since leasing a house in the town in 1826 had held a succession of municipal offices, including that of bailiff, which he resigned to contest the election.43 He evidently sought the backing of the Wellington ministry through Lord Stuart de Rothesay, the ambassador to Paris and likely purchaser of his father’s estate at Christchurch, whom he regarded ‘in some measure’ as his patron. But on finding that government ‘did not choose to interfere’, Penleaze decided, as he explained to De Rothesay, 28 Dec., that ‘the only possible chance of success which I had was to throw myself into the arms of the Dissenters, at the same time avowing publicly my attachment and adhesion to the duke’. He added that by signing the petition for Catholic emancipation he had already alienated ‘the High Church party’, and that by standing ‘under the banners of Chamberlayne’ he would risk losing the support of several influential figures, including Sir George Henry Rose, a former Tory Member now sitting for Christchurch, Sir John Walter Pollen of Redenham, Tory Member for Andover, and Sir Charles Mill of Camois Court, Sussex.44 Penleaze’s rival, brought forward by a party he dubbed ‘the Blacks’, was James Barlow Hoy of Midanbury, who, it was alleged, had the support of Dottin. A ‘rich fool’, according to his opponent, he had lately come into the estate and fortune of his kinsman Michael Hoy, a former Southampton magistrate, and had no qualms about spending his inheritance to boost his popularity. According to one critic, he quickly secured 30 of the 36 available public houses, in which ‘bands of music, dinners and suppers’ were laid on, employed scores of voters as campaign extras and ensured the support of the Hampshire Advertiser by placing a large print order.45 The Portsmouth Herald, which also favoured him, insisted that the prevalence of ‘beastly intoxication’ had been curbed by a mayoral edict against liquor distribution, 20 Dec. However, a requisition was later circulated for a meeting to determine how best to prevent such ‘wanton and unconstitutional expenditure’ in future.46

On 26 Dec. 1829 Penleaze withdrew on the advice of Martin Maddison, a Tory banker who had been entrusted to keep a record of promises for both parties, which he reckoned at 355 for Penleaze and an unassailable 763 for Hoy.47 Penleaze’s parting address referred to the evident inability of ‘legal and fair means’ to sway the electors.48 To De Rothesay he complained:

The lukewarmness and selfishness of what is called the better class of people could not keep pace with the active and powerful engine of bribery. After spending 3,000 [guineas] I discovered Southampton to be as rotten as any borough in England, and to have any chance of success, and that very doubtful, I must spend 7,000 more.49

Nothing was heard of the other rumoured candidates, who included John Leigh Beckford, the son of Chamberlayne’s chief supporter, Arthur Atherley, former Whig Member for Southampton, a son of Sir Eyre Coote, Member for Barnstaple, 1812-18, and William Gore Langton*, former Member for Somerset. William Sanders, a local builder, was mocked for his audacity in issuing an address and withdrew after a disappointing subscription.50 Finding that no better candidate was forthcoming, on 2 Jan. 1830 Henry Stanton, the originator of the anti-emancipation petition of the previous year, came forward, calling for parliamentary reform and ‘a wise and spirited interference in Greece’. He had been dropped from Hoy’s committee for signing an address demanding a candidate ‘of truly British Protestant principles’ the previous month, but although he billed himself as an army officer and provided a local address, he appears to have been no more than a militiaman and was later described as ‘of Tower Hamlets’.51 On the hustings, in a tirade lasting an hour and 20 minutes, he condemned the evil consequences of Catholic emancipation and the insidious electoral influence of monopolistic brewers. He also attacked the bland compliments passed on Hoy by his proposer, Sir Joseph Yorke*, and the absence of political professions from the candidate, who he claimed had boasted that ‘he would come in, cost what it would’. Though Stanton was put in nomination, he declined to stand a poll on account of Penleaze being proposed in absentia by William Lankester, an upholsterer and prominent radical, who headed a newly formed ‘Independent Committee’. Penleaze, who had anticipated the renewal of his candidacy in a letter to De Rothesay, promptly returned to Southampton to attend the poll. After two days Hoy led by 89 to 46 amid allegations of mob intimidation by his supporters, in which both Stanton and Bryant, Penleaze’s seconder, were supposed to have been injured.52 Hoy’s committee responded by attacking the impartiality of the mayor and the conduct of Penleaze in reneging on his withdrawal, which both Rose and Sturges Bourne cited as sufficient reason to oppose him. After five days Penleaze quit the town, leaving his backers to resign on his behalf next day, whereupon considerable damage was done to their committee rooms.53

Hoy, who was chaired in ‘a beautiful Roman car’ during a blizzard, polled 72 per cent of the vote and was credited by his pollbook keeper with another 100 disputed votes and 315 unpolled supporters (the published pollbook lists 371), against 14 and 63 respectively for Penleaze. This left 289 electors unaccounted for out of the notional electorate of 1,411. Only 12 non-resident burgesses polled, ten for Hoy and two for Penleaze. Hoy, who refused to be drawn on politics even after the conclusion of the contest, attributed his success to ‘the mercantile and trading interest’, and a supporter hailed his victory as a triumph over the corporation.54 These statements suggest that the contest followed similar lines to those identified by the historian of the corporation, between the established ‘party of gentlemen’ on the one hand and a rising business class on the other.55 Yet a breakdown of the poll demonstrates that Hoy, consistently with his reputation as the moneyed candidate, scored best with the lower orders, securing the votes of 154 (70 per cent) of the 220 craftsmen and 87 (89 per cent) of the 98 labourers who participated. Moreover, Penleaze performed his best among the merchants and manufacturers, obtaining 11 votes to his opponent’s 15.56 Even allowing for politically motivated exaggeration, it is apparent that the election was exceptionally corrupt. Joseph Lankester, a brother of Penleaze’s proposer, later informed an 1842 Commons select committee that ‘we never had such a system of treating, either before or since, as at that election’. The expenditure was put at £9-10,000 for Hoy and £4-5,000 for Penleaze. Disgust at the associated scenes of drunken disorder reportedly led many respectable electors to threaten non-participation in future contests.57 A meeting to press for a relaxation of the penal code was held, 8 Mar., and the ensuing petition was presented by Dottin, 15 Mar. 1830. A petition from local bankers for mitigation of the punishment for forgery reached the Commons, 24 May.58 That month it was reported that Cobbett had sent an agent to canvass the town, but that he had met with little success.59 A meeting to offer condolence and congratulation to the new king was held, at which the address was seconded by Hoy, 12 July 1830.60

At the 1830 general election the sitting Members, described by the local press as ‘too firmly fixed to fear an opponent’, offered again. Rumours that John Fleming of Stoneham, the county Member, would intervene came to nothing and the possibility of Stanton renewing his candidacy was not taken seriously.61 Dottin’s failure to present a petition against the friendly societies bill was excused as an oversight by the partisan Hampshire Advertiser, but elsewhere there were reports of moves to oppose him on this issue and his ownership of West Indian plantations. A canvass was made by Charles Frederick Williams, a king’s counsel of London and probably the unsuccessful candidate for St. Ives in 1826, who declared his opposition to slavery and support for civil and religious liberty. Though he professed his ‘full intention’ to go to a poll, in the event he decamped to Exeter, where he was apparently retained on a case.62 Joseph Lankester, one of his supporters, later explained that ‘we were juggled out of it by a comparison of the books ... the expenses were about £400 only’.63 At the nomination Dottin’s seconder, Maddison, praised Williams for his honest canvass and straightforward withdrawal, while Dottin flattered the electors by refuting claims that they were ‘a venal and fickle race, "giddy and insecure"’, whom ‘beer and tobacco would, at any time, purchase’. Although Hoy was proposed by Rose, he affirmed his commitment to the independent political line he had hitherto pursued, for which even Stanton gave him credit, and cited his endeavours to obtain improved status for Southampton as a port. The Members were returned unopposed and chaired without incident.64

Petitions for the abolition of slavery reached the Commons, 11, 12 Nov., 11 Dec. 1830, 28 Mar. 1831, and the Lords, 25 Nov. 1830, 15 Apr. 1831, and one from the women of the town was presented to the Commons, 28 Mar., and the Lords, 20 Apr. 1831.65 The ‘Swing’ riots swept the area in late November 1830, when threatening letters were received in the town and notices appeared of an intended burning in effigy of the ex-ministers. An inhabitants’ meeting expressed sympathy for the plight of the rural poor but abhorrence of the destruction of property, 22 Nov.; and although 300 special constables were sworn in, they were powerless to prevent next day’s probable arson attack on the sawmills of Charles Baker, which caused £7,000 worth of damage.66 At an inhabitants’ meeting, 2 Dec., a petition for investigation of the causes of the disturbances was drawn up, which expressed support for the Grey ministry’s declaration in favour of reform and urged tax reductions and retrenchments in the pension list. It was presented by the radical Hume, who taunted Hoy with being out of touch with constituency opinion, 16 Dec. 1830.67 An address pleading for clemency to be shown to the ‘Swing’ rioters condemned to death by the Winchester special commission was signed by 1,368 in the space of a day and forwarded to the king in January 1831.68 A petition for a reduction in the number of capital offences reached the Lords, 7 Mar.69

On 5 Jan. 1831 the inaugural meeting of the pro-reform Patriotic Association was held at the Long Rooms, where the main topic of discussion was the need to curb ‘the torrent of corruption and iniquity so generally witnessed at a Southampton election’. (As if to illustrate the point, the proceedings were disrupted by drunken Tory hecklers.) It was determined that the Association would make no binding endorsement of a candidate, for although Williams had evidently renewed his interest, he did not command universal approval.70 Two draft petitions were considered at an inhabitants’ meeting on parliamentary reform, 9 Mar., following which the version containing the fuller endorsement of the ministry’s proposals was carried and presented by Lord John Russell, 21 Mar. 1831.71 Both Members voted against the reform bill, following which Atherley, now resident at Arundel, Sussex, and Penleaze offered to come forward as supporters of the measure at the next election, the latter evidently at the behest of a deputation of electors. Although Dottin’s first address was defiant, alleging that by its exclusion of poorer electors and out-voters from the franchise, the bill ‘would have the effect of disfranchising nearly one half of the voters of Southampton’, 31 Mar., he eventually announced that he would retire on account of ill health, 25 Apr. That day Hoy, who stood firm, was hissed at an inhabitants’ meeting held to vote thanks to the king for the dissolution, which was addressed by Penleaze.72 Dottin duly retired and Hoy offered against the two reformers. On 24 Apr. Atherley had assured Lord Holland that his own return was ‘secure’ and that Penleaze, with whom he was hitherto unacquainted, and about whom he had unspecified reservations, had also conducted a successful canvass. Penleaze, he observed, ‘would do for the occasion’, though he wished that a ‘Mr. Chamberlayne’, probably Thomas Chamberlayne of Cranbury Park, the cousin and heir of the former Member, ‘had accepted an invitation given him a month ago’.73 On 27 Apr., however, Duncombe Pleydell Bouverie* informed his brother Lord Radnor that ‘the new candidates had been roughly treated at Southampton, where the elective franchise will be narrowed by the reform’.74 Hoy certainly mined this seam of discontent in his hustings speech, when he also drew attention to the added influence given to Irish Catholics by the bill, but claimed not to be hostile to all species of reform. According to one report, he was given a ‘very unpleasant reception’ and was grilled about his vote for the Wellington ministry in the crucial division on the civil list. Atherley and Penleaze, who reiterated their support for the bill, won the show of hands and led comfortably during the ensuing four-day poll, which ended with Hoy’s resignation.75 Treating was evidently not carried on to the extent of the 1830 by-election, at least by the reformers, who had taken non-licensed premises as committee rooms and were burnt in effigy by a mob disgruntled with their meagre beer ration. Philip Carteret Fall, the partner of Atherley’s brother in the town’s Whig bank, later testified that the reformers’ total expenditure was £484, most of which was met by subscription, towards which Atherley contributed a mere £22 for the printing of pollbooks. At an evidently rowdy chairing, held in accordance with local tradition, Atherley’s conveyance was broken up for souvenirs and Penleaze was only partially successful in trying to save his own from a similar fate.76 Of the 1,016 who polled,77 600 (59 per cent) supported both the reformers, 117 (12 per cent) split their votes between Atherley and Hoy and 23 (two per cent) for Penleaze and Hoy. Of the 276 (27 per cent) who cast single votes, 251 plumped for Hoy, 15 for Atherley and ten for Penleaze. From the 33 honorary burgesses who polled, the reform candidates and Hoy took 15 votes each, while three gave plumpers to Atherley.78

A reform dinner at the Long Rooms was addressed by the new Members, 26 May, and thanks were voted to them for their steady support for the reintroduced bill at a meeting held to urge the Lords to pass it, 21 Sept. 1831. The resulting petition reached the Upper House, 30 Sept.79 Another meeting produced an address to the king to retain the incumbent ministers, 14 Oct., which was entrusted to the Members, who were both present.80 Resolutions were carried in support of the Members and the temporarily displaced Grey ministry at a meeting, 14 May 1832, at which Wellington was censured.81 News of the reform bill’s passage through the Lords was greeted with a peal of bells and a parade of the town band, 5 June 1832, and a formal reform banquet took place later in that summer.82

The returns associated with the revised reform bill showed that Southampton contained 1,667 houses worth over £10 per annum and paid assessed taxes of £11,378. The boundary commissioners reported that it displayed ‘all the marks of a flourishing and wealthy place’ and, finding ample space for further development within the established boundaries, recommended no enlargement.83 By the residency requirements of the Reform Act the number of out-voters was reduced from about 160 to 44 and the total registered electorate fell to 1,403. One-thousand-and-forty-six polled at the 1832 general election, when Hoy won back his seat, defeating Penleaze by ten votes, but was then unseated by Penleaze on petition. The retirement of the sitting Members left the way clear for the victory of Hoy and Dottin over two new Liberals in 1835. The representation was divided again in 1837, but the Conservatives restored their ascendancy in 1841. Corruption, or allegations thereof, remained an enduring feature of Southampton elections.84

Authors: Howard Spencer / Philip Salmon


  • 1. Southampton Pollbook (Barnfield, 1820); PP (1831-2), xxxviii. 229-30.
  • 2. Southampton Herald, 12 June 1826.
  • 3. Southampton Corporation Jnls. ed. A. Temple Patterson, 34, 36, 49.
  • 4. PP (1831-2), xxxviii. 229; (1835), xxiv. 211, 217-18.
  • 5. Ibid. (1831-2), xxxvi. 587;
  • 6. Voluminous Account of the Late Very Expensive Southampton Election (1830), 3.
  • 7. PP (1842), viii. 508-9, 667, 768.
  • 8. Hants Chron. 7, 14, 21 Feb. 1820; Southampton RO D/S 19/26/1.
  • 9. Grey mss, Tierney to Grey, 27 Feb. 1820.
  • 10. Hants Chron. 20 Mar. 1820.
  • 11. Southampton Pollbook (Barnfield, 1820). Baker’s pollbook gives 839.
  • 12. Hants Chron. 20 Mar. 1820; Southampton Pollbook (Barnfield, 1820); Southampton RO D/S 19/26/9.
  • 13. Southampton RO D/S 19/26/5 and passim.
  • 14. Ibid. D/Ar 9; Hants Chron. 20 Mar. 1820.
  • 15. Southampton RO D/S 19/26/4.
  • 16. Ibid. 19/26/6.
  • 17. Hants Chron. 27 Mar.; Salisbury Jnl. 18 Sept., 13 Nov. 1820.
  • 18. Hants Chron. 3 Apr. 1820.
  • 19. Salisbury Jnl. 20, 27 Nov., 4 Dec. 1820.
  • 20. Ibid. 5 Mar. 1821; CJ, lxxvi. 350; The Times, 18 May 1821.
  • 21. Salisbury Jnl. 23 July 1821; Southampton Corporation Jnls. 29, 32.
  • 22. Salisbury Jnl. 22 Oct. 1821.
  • 23. Southampton Corporation Jnls. 36; Southampton Herald, 26 July 1824, 24 Jan., 2 May 1825; R. Douch, Monuments and Memorials in Southampton, 15.
  • 24. Southampton Herald, 25 Aug., 22 Sept. 1823.
  • 25. A. Temple Patterson, Hist. Southampton, i. 149-50; Salisbury Jnl. 2 Feb. 1824; CJ, lxxix. 446.
  • 26. Southampton Herald, 18 Oct., 1 Nov. 1824.
  • 27. Salisbury Jnl. 14 Feb.; The Times, 26 Feb. 1825; CJ, lxxx. 127.
  • 28. Southampton Herald, 25 Mar. 1825.
  • 29. Ibid. 12 June 1826.
  • 30. Ibid. 26 Sept. 1825.
  • 31. Ibid. 10 Apr., 5 June 1826.
  • 32. LJ, lviii. 321; CJ, lxxxi. 372.
  • 33. Southampton Herald, 12 June 1826.
  • 34. Salisbury Jnl. 12, 26 June 1826.
  • 35. Account of Southampton Election (1830), 3.
  • 36. Southampton Herald, 21 Aug. 1826, 5 Feb, 19 Mar. 1827.
  • 37. Ibid. 2 Oct. 1826, 23 Apr. 1827; Salisbury Jnl. 17 Sept. 1827.
  • 38. Southampton Herald, 26 Feb. 1827; Salisbury Jnl. 7 Jan. 1828, 12 Jan. 1829.
  • 39. CJ, lxxxii. 504, 545; lxxxiii. 90, 96; LJ, lx. 76, 154.
  • 40. LJ, lx. 637; lxii. 503; CJ, lxxxiii. 555.
  • 41. CJ, lxxxiv. 103; LJ, lxi. 107; Account of Southampton Election (1830), 21.
  • 42. Salisbury Jnl. 9 Mar. 1829; CJ, lxxxiv. 114; LJ, lxi. 156.
  • 43. Southampton RO D/MH 3/4/10; Southampton Corporation Jnls. 43, 46, 49; Portsmouth Herald, 27 Dec. 1829.
  • 44. VCH Hants, v. 84; Southampton RO D/Z 681/1A.
  • 45. Southampton RO D/Z 681/1A; Hants Telegraph, 21 Dec. 1829; Account of Southampton Election (1830), 4-6.
  • 46. Hants Advertiser, 2 Jan. 1830.
  • 47. Account of Southampton Election (1830), 5.
  • 48. Hants Advertiser, 2 Jan. 1830.
  • 49. Southampton RO D/Z 681/1A.
  • 50. Hants Advertiser, 12 Dec. 1829.
  • 51. Account of Southampton Election (1830), frontispiece, 4; Hants Advertiser, 19 Dec. 1829, 2 Jan., 17 July 1830.
  • 52. Account of Southampton Election (1830), 8-39; Temple Patterson, i. 152-3; Southampton RO D/Z 681/1A.
  • 53. Hants Advertiser, 16 Jan. 1830; Account of Southampton Election (1830), 39-45.
  • 54. Hants Advertiser, 23 Jan. 1830; Southampton Pollbook (1830).
  • 55. Southampton Corporation Jnls. 15.
  • 56. Southampton Pollbook (1830).
  • 57. PP (1842), viii. 508-9, 667.
  • 58. Salisbury Jnl. 15 Mar. 1830; CJ, lxxxv. 178, 463.
  • 59. Hants Advertiser, 15 May 1830.
  • 60. Ibid. 17 July 1830.
  • 61. Ibid. 3, 10, 17 July 1830.
  • 62. Ibid. 24 July; Salisbury Jnl. 19, 26 July; Southampton Mercury, 31 July 1830; Temple Patterson, i. 153.
  • 63. PP (1842), viii. 667.
  • 64. Hants Advertiser, 7 Aug.; Southampton Mercury, 7 Aug.; Salisbury Jnl. 9 Aug. 1830; Temple Patterson, i. 152; Account of Southampton Election (1830), 47.
  • 65. CJ, lxxxvi. 56, 61, 167, 445; LJ, lxiii. 125, 435, 491.
  • 66. E. Hobsbawm and G. Rudé, Captain Swing (1985), 92-93; Hants Advertiser, 27 Nov.; Salisbury Jnl. 29 Nov.; Temple Patterson, i. 154-6.
  • 67. Salisbury Jnl. 6 Dec. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 182; Temple Patterson, i. 156-7.
  • 68. Temple Patterson, i. 158.
  • 69. LJ, lxii. 116.
  • 70. Public Meeting of Patriotic Soc. of Southampton.
  • 71. Hants Advertiser, 12 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 415.
  • 72. Hants Advertiser, 2, 9, 30 Apr. 1831; Southampton Corporation Jnls. 49.
  • 73. Add. 52836.
  • 74. Wilts. RO, Radnor mss 490/1375.
  • 75. The Times 5, 9 May; Hants Advertiser, 7 May 1831.
  • 76. Hants Advertiser, 30 Apr., 14 May 1831; PP (1842), viii. 768.
  • 77. Southampton Pollbook (Fletcher, 1831) gives 1,023. The following figures have been adjusted to take into account tendered votes added or removed at the close of the poll.
  • 78. Southampton Pollbook (King, 1831).
  • 79. Hants Advertiser, 28 May; Salisbury Jnl. 26 Sept. 1831; LJ, lxiii. 1022.
  • 80. Hants Advertiser, 15 Oct.; Salisbury Jnl. 17 Oct. 1831.
  • 81. Salisbury Jnl. 21 May 1832.
  • 82. Ibid. 11 June 1832; Temple Patterson, i. 160.
  • 83. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 310; xxxviii. 229-30.
  • 84. P. Salmon, Electoral Reform at Work, 260; Temple Patterson, i. 172-4; ii. 33-48; PP (1835), xxiv. 218.