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

Background Information

Estimated number qualified to vote:

about 6,0001


13 Mar. 1820George HOLME SUMNER 
 William Joseph DENISON 
19 June 1826William Joseph DENISON2309
 Charles Nicholas PALLMER2056
 George Holme Sumner1375
9 Aug. 1830William Joseph DENISON2159
 John Ivatt BRISCOE1487
 Hylton Jolliffe1252
5 May 1831William Joseph DENISON 
 John Ivatt BRISCOE 

Main Article

Surrey, a mixed agricultural and commercial county which bordered on London to the north-east, was the fifth most populous English county, according to the 1831 census. Agricultural production in the southern and western areas was apparently ‘by no means of the first order’, but the farmers and market gardeners benefited from their close proximity to the London market. Census returns show that households engaged in trade outnumbered those dependent on agriculture by around three to one. Manufacturing and other business activities were concentrated in the north-eastern districts of Southwark and Lambeth, opposite the City of London, while the suburban towns of Kingston, Richmond and especially Croydon were rapidly growing centres of population.2 Guildford was the county town and the venue for parliamentary elections. Freeholders in the business and suburban areas seem to have accounted for rather less than one-third of the electorate. Nevertheless, in the face of urban advance, formerly powerful aristocratic influences were in retreat before 1820. For instance, neither the 2nd nor the 3rd earls of Onslow of West Clandon, the leading Tory peers, felt inclined to attend county meetings, let alone exert themselves to command the return of a Member, as had their predecessors. The 7th Baron King of Ockham, a Whig, was the most active resident peer. Charles Barclay*, a member of the prominent Southwark brewing family, expatiated on the ‘peculiar’ political characteristics of the county in a hustings speech in 1826:

It consisted of men concerned only in commercial pursuits, and of men whose only business was agriculture. To represent such a county, it required a man who had talent enough to weigh well the precise value of those interests which frequently came into collision, and to decide impartially and soundly upon their different bearings ... There were no rich and noble families to claim or to exercise an exclusive influence; and divided as it was among numerous and independent freeholders, no man could expect to gain their votes unless his private virtue and his public conduct had first shown that he deserved them.3

All the Members returned in this period were first or second generation landed gentlemen of the county, whose fortunes had been derived largely from commercial or colonial interests.

At the county meeting held at Epsom, 15 Feb. 1820, the Whig Member William Joseph Denison of Denbies, near Dorking, seconded the motion for an address of condolence and congratulation to George IV, and regretted the absence of his colleague George Holme Sumner of Hatchlands Park, East Clandon, a supporter of Lord Liverpool’s ministry.4 The compromise that had permitted the unopposed return of these political irreconcilables in 1818 held for the general election of 1820, despite indications in Holme Sumner’s address that he had expected trouble. On the hustings, he was obliged to defend his Commons voting record, particularly his support for the government’s repressive legislation, and the speeches of some freeholders betrayed frustration that no challenger had appeared.5 In November 1820, following the withdrawal of the bill of pains and penalties against Queen Caroline, support for her was manifested in illuminations at Croydon and Kingston. The next month King informed Lord Holland that he was on his guard after hearing reports that ministerialists were to try ‘smuggling a loyal address’ from Surrey. He expressed himself ‘very willing to try a county meeting if it is thought advisable’, as ‘we have all the yeomanry farmers and shopkeepers’, but added that ‘almost all the squires are against us’. He feared that Epsom, the usual location of such meetings, was a less propitious venue than either Guildford or Kingston to secure a large attendance, but concluded that ‘we must not attempt innovation in this important particular’.6 The attendance at the meeting on 2 Feb. 1821 was, according to the radical Whig Henry Grey Bennet*, ‘more numerous than had ever been known’, and ‘a great number of the gentlemen of the county came to support our resolutions’; Sir Thomas Turton† and ‘some of the borough magistrates’ were present to support Holme Sumner. The resolutions, which called for the restoration of the queen’s name to the liturgy and deplored the bill of pains and penalties as a distraction from the prevailing problems of economic distress and high taxation, were moved by King and ‘Mr. Evelyn of Wootton’; an adjournment motion was proposed by ‘Mr. Trotter’ and Lord Ellenborough, a future Tory minister. Denison, who spoke for the resolutions and defended the practice of holding county meetings, was ‘very well received’, but Holme Sumner, in what Grey Bennet described as ‘a bad, foolish, indiscreet speech’, in which he reasserted the queen’s guilt, was ‘often interrupted and always censured’ by the audience. The sheriff, Hutches Trower, directed those who were not freeholders to withdraw, and the ‘400 or 500’ who remained carried the resolutions overwhelmingly; ‘about 14 persons’ voted against them. Trower rejected an attempt to launch a censure motion against Holme Sumner, but it was pointedly agreed, with ‘one person only dissenting’, to entrust the resulting petition to Denison alone. Its presentation, 8 Feb. 1821, provided the occasion for a ‘long and warm discussion’ of the government’s treatment of the queen.7 Holme Sumner was also given a rough ride at the county meetings in 1822, when hecklers warned him that he could expect to be opposed at a dissolution. At the meeting summoned to petition for relief from agricultural distress, 4 Feb., both Members spoke in favour of the resolutions calling for tax reductions, but these were negatived after the sheriff, John Spicer, ruled out of order an attempt by King to include a reference to the need for parliamentary reform. For the second meeting, two weeks later, reform was specified as a subject for consideration, and despite Ellenborough’s opposition it featured in the prayer of the resulting petition to the Commons, which was carried unanimously and entrusted solely to Denison for presentation, 21 Feb. 1822.8 Early in 1823, when King and Grey Bennet organized a requisition for another meeting on distress and reform, George Agar Ellis* urged them to ‘soften’ the wording of the proposed resolutions in the hope that Ellenborough, who professed his willingness to accept reform ‘in a moderate way’, might agree to them. In the event, Ellenborough, Holme Sumner and Turton spoke out against the resolutions at the meeting on 10 Feb., but they received little support and the wording of the demand for reform was strengthened by an amendment from the radical activist William Cobbett†. The resulting petition, signed by freeholders and owners and occupiers of land, complained of the ‘great decline in the price of agricultural produce’, dismissed the relief offered by government the previous year as ‘most inadequate’ and demanded ‘further and much greater reduction’ of taxes, especially repeal of the house and window taxes and the malt duties. It continued by noting that the petitioners ‘entertain the most decided opinion that their present distress would never have been known if the representation of the people in the House had been consonant with the long settled laws and constitution of their country’, and called for ‘speedy and effectual reform’. Denison again presented the petition alone, 26 Feb. 1823.9 Holme Sumner, perhaps piqued at having to face these hostile gatherings, complained to the home secretary Peel in September 1824 that irregularities in the appointment of sheriffs had led to tradesmen assuming the office. Accordingly, he appended a list of suitable landed candidates for the post, with separate markings for Whigs and ‘incorrigible radicals’, and explained that ‘though I think ... neither should be excused the burthen of the office’, a ‘little caution might be used in respect of the appointment of such gentlemen whose political bias might be found inconvenient in a year when a general election was likely to occur’.10 Following a meeting attended by both Members, an anti-slavery petition was sent up to the Commons, 9 Mar. 1826.11

At the quarter sessions in April 1826 Turton praised Denison and Holme Sumner for their ‘application to the business of the county at any hour, however late’.12 This expression of satisfaction proved to be far from universal, however, and a meeting held at Kingston in May, ostensibly for the purpose of raising a subscription ‘to assist distressed manufacturers’, appears to have originated a requisition for a new candidate at the approaching general election, which was eventually signed by 400 freeholders. Their call was answered by Charles Nicholas Pallmer of Norbiton, who declared his candidacy just nine days before the nomination. It was generally understood that his opposition was directed at Holme Sumner, whose strident advocacy of agricultural protection had, by his own admission, given offence to manufacturing and commercial interests at the urban end of the county. Holme Sumner ascribed his particular unpopularity in Kingston to his attempt, as a county magistrate, to close the town’s house of correction. In the same capacity, his enthusiastic advocacy of the treadmill had antagonised liberal opinion throughout the county and spawned the cry against him of ‘no treadmill - no corn bill’.13 Holme Sumner was entirely unprepared for a contest; neither he nor Denison had bothered to canvass. Sensing that his seat was in danger, he badgered Peel for government support. Peel urged his case on Liverpool, with reference to an undertaking once given by Pitt, but this was brushed aside by the premier, a neighbour and friend of Pallmer, who ruled out any intervention. Liverpool maintained that ‘the real cause of the contest’ was ‘not political’, since Pallmer was ‘as good a friend of the government as [Holme] Sumner’, but was rooted in the latter’s ‘personal unpopularity’: he was ‘hated by all parties in the county except his immediate friends’, because of his ‘offensive and overbearing’ manner. Consequently, even if Pallmer, who the premier believed had not sought the nomination, declined it, ‘another Whig’ would be ‘brought forward with a good chance, if not a certainty, of success’.14 On the hustings, Denison frankly declared that he would ‘stand or fall’ on his Whig principles and, mentioning a register which he had kept of his parliamentary votes, reviewed his record of support for economy, retrenchment, Canning’s liberal foreign policy and other measures. He advocated a ‘temperate and moderate’ measure of reform, revision of the corn laws and the gradual abolition of slavery. He regretted that his support for Catholic relief had offended some of his constituents and was at pains to emphasize his opposition to the payment of Catholic priests. Holme Sumner, who faced heckling about his conduct during the Queen Caroline affair, reiterated his commitment to agricultural protection, explaining that free trade principles were fine in theory but inapplicable to practical realities. Pallmer, evidently recognizing that his best chance against an abrasive opponent lay in causing the least offence to all parties, studiously avoided all but the most general declarations as to politics; with regard to the corn laws, he merely observed that ‘the poor ought to be fed cheaply’. Eventually, under pressure from Holme Sumner, an implacable opponent of Catholic relief, he conceded having a ‘bias’ against that measure. The show of hands was called for Denison and Holme Sumner and polling commenced. At the end of the day, support from the agricultural interest in the west had placed Holme Sumner at the head of the poll, with 251 votes to Denison’s 208 and Pallmer’s 187. However, on the second day, the arrival of large numbers of voters from the urban districts pushed Denison into the lead, with 672 votes, while Pallmer took second place with 655 and Holme Sumner trailed on 603. It was reported on the third that a subscription for Holme Sumner, totalling £7,000, had been raised by his friends among the gentry and magistracy. He tried to exploit Pallmer’s West Indian slave proprietorship by adopting an unconvincing abolitionist line (Pallmer ironically welcomed his conversion to the cause), and a group of blacked-up farmhands formed a procession displaying a placard which read: ‘We no understand you, Massa Pallmer’. Holme Sumner’s opponents responded by parading a wooden model of a treadmill, with red herrings attached to it. Confirming his cantankerous reputation, Holme Sumner erupted on the platform into a furious outburst against his detractors, whom he accused of surreptitiously fomenting opposition to him. By the end of the day, the gap between him and Pallmer had widened to 310, and the relative positions of the candidates remained unchanged thereafter.15 Holme Sumner resigned the contest at noon on the sixth day. In returning thanks, Denison defended his vote against small bank note issues. Pallmer, while praising the Whig leaders, finally declared his ‘decided preference’ for the Liverpool ministry; he still declined to pledge himself on the corn and currency questions, but promised to ‘study them as well as he was able’.16 Privately, Holme Sumner consoled himself with having retained the confidence of ‘all the men of intelligence, and nineteen-twentieths of the proprietary of the county’, if not of the ‘tinkers and tailors’. According to a later report, Pallmer’s election cost him £20,000.17

The pollbook, which is incomplete, confirms that the victorious candidates owed the margin of their victory to their having cornered the urban vote. For example, in the hundred of Brixton, where 747 electors were polled, 89 gave plumpers for Denison, Pallmer received 70 and Holme Sumner 44, while Denison and Pallmer shared 486 split votes, Denison and Holme Sumner had 53 and Pallmer and Holme Sumner just five. Similarly in the borough of Southwark, 160 were polled of whom ten plumped for Denison, 16 did so for Pallmer and 20 for Holme Sumner, but Denison and Pallmer received 96 split votes, Denison and Holme Sumner shared 18 while Pallmer and Holme Sumner had none. In the hundred of Kingston, where Pallmer was the local candidate, 247 were polled, from whom Denison secured seven plumpers, Holme Sumner had 11 and Pallmer 124, while 92 votes were split between Denison and Pallmer, five between Denison and Holme Sumner and eight between Pallmer and Holme Sumner. Denison enjoyed the most even spread of support across urban and rural districts. Holme Sumner’s best showing was in the western hundreds: in Woking, where 471 were polled, he obtained 156 plumpers to Denison’s 64 and Pallmer’s 30, while Holme Sumner and Denison shared 92 split votes, Holme Sumner and Pallmer had 52 and Denison and Pallmer 77. In Godley, where 434 were polled, 150 gave plumpers to Holme Sumner, 90 did so for Pallmer and 11 for Denison, while 76 split their votes between Holme Sumner and Pallmer, 22 between Holme Sumner and Denison, and 85 between Denison and Pallmer. Pallmer undoubtedly benefited from the support of Whig partisans, who gave him their second votes faute de mieux. Among them were the former Member Lord William Russell* and many of the squad of voters sent by the duke of Gloucester on Denison’s behalf; Lord Spencer also used his influence to assist both men.18

Although Pallmer’s victory was acclaimed as a popular triumph and a setback for the anti-Catholic cause, his subsequent conduct in the Commons largely vindicated Lord Althorp’s* view that politically he would not differ greatly from his predecessor.19 Indeed, the enthusiasm with which he replicated Holme Sumner’s line on the Catholic question caused Alexander Baring to remind him in the House, 9 Mar. 1829, of his debt to ‘independent and liberal-minded men’ for his return, and John Maberly* of Shirley repented of having supported him. Unabashed, Pallmer vehemently opposed the Wellington ministry’s plan to grant emancipation at a county meeting, 21 Mar., when Denison spoke in support of the measure along with Henry Hunt* (whose town residence was in Southwark) and Maberly. The anti-Catholic resolutions were carried by an ‘immense majority’ of those present, reported to be predominantly labourers, and the petition was presented by Pallmer, 26 Mar. 1829.20 At a ‘rather thinly attended’ meeting held to petition for relief from distress by tax remissions, 19 Mar., a resolution proposed by Hunt was rejected in favour of one put forward by Denison’s election sponsor, John Leach of Lea; Denison presented the resulting petition, 23 Mar. 1830.21 Pallmer unexpectedly announced his retirement at the dissolution that summer, and two new candidates entered the field. First to appear was Hylton Jolliffe of Merstham, whose long and hitherto undistinguished parliamentary career had been as Member for his pocket borough of Petersfield. His untried opponent was John Ivatt Briscoe, who had earned a reputation as a liberal magistrate; he owned land at Chertsey, though his main estate lay across the Middlesex border at Twickenham. Briscoe’s was an eleventh hour candidacy, and followed public meetings at Croydon, Epsom, Godalming, Kingston, Rotherhithe and Southwark, where subscriptions had been raised to support a suitable man.22 The nomination meeting was held at Epsom, where Denison pointed to his consistent support for economy and retrenchment and described himself as a ‘steady friend’ of reform, who wanted to ‘extend the privilege of the people’ and ‘narrow the channels of corruption’. Briscoe professed enthusiasm for retrenchment and extension of the franchise to the large towns. Jolliffe evaded questioning on his attitude to reform, and was beaten on the show of hands. On the election hustings, Denison made specific suggestions for £5 million of tax cuts, called for the abolition of rotten boroughs and the transfer of their seats to populous towns such as Croydon and Kingston, advocated shorter parliaments and said he was ‘rather friendly’ to the ballot. Briscoe pronounced his general agreement with the principles enunciated by Denison, while stressing that ‘he bound himself to no party’. He declared himself the ‘staunch political enemy’ of Jolliffe, whose ownership of a pocket borough made his rejection imperative for the sake of the ‘political honour and independence’ of the county; he reminded the freeholders that ‘it was at Surrey the great charter of our liberties was signed’. Jolliffe, who was evidently no orator and suffered a barrage of abuse, denied one squib writer’s charge that he had been hitherto ‘the humble servant of every minister in power’, claiming that he had sought only one favour from government in 30 years; his sponsors nevertheless made clear his support for Wellington’s ministry. Briscoe received a fulsome endorsement from Pallmer (whom he had nominated in 1826), while Jolliffe had the dubious benefit of Holme Sumner’s blessing. The latter maintained that ‘the landed gentry ought to represent the county’ and antagonised an already hostile crowd by questioning the basis for Briscoe’s pretensions, asserting that he ‘only had a cottage in the county’.23 At the end of the first day’s polling Denison was narrowly in the lead with 462 votes to Jolliffe’s 456, while Briscoe trailed on 215. On the second day, Denison pulled comfortably ahead with 1,376 votes, and Jolliffe retained a slender lead over Briscoe by 887 to 862. It was then alleged that Jolliffe’s canvassers were using an agreement on sharing the expenses for conveying split voters as a pretext for coupling his name with Denison’s. Briscoe overtook Jolliffe on the third day, by 1,436 votes to 1,242, whereupon the latter defiantly vowed to continue. Rumours of Jolliffe’s resignation nevertheless circulated the next day, a Sunday, and the election terminated in farce on the Monday. Although Jolliffe had instructed his agents not to bring up any more voters, he did not actually resign the contest, and for a time Holme Sumner exercised his right to keep the poll open. In so doing he clashed with Jolliffe’s agents, who eventually brought proceedings to a close by dissuading any more of their supporters from polling. Amid catcalls, Holme Sumner again questioned Briscoe’s standing in the county by requiring him to take the freeholder’s oath.24 Jolliffe’s defeat was regarded by ministers as a setback, but one which Lord Lowther* blamed squarely on the unpopularity of the candidate.25 No pollbook has survived. Jolliffe’s reluctance to concede defeat apparently sprang from his determination to petition against the return, on being advised that the land tax assessments used to ascertain the qualifications of freeholders were wholly inaccurate. He duly petitioned the Commons, 14 Nov. 1830, alleging that Briscoe’s majority consisted of ineligible votes, that instances of bribery, treating and plural voting had occurred, and that Briscoe was not qualified to be a county Member. However, he failed to enter into recognizances.26

Surrey’s proximity to the London market for its agricultural produce may help to explain the comparatively limited incidence of incendiarism and other demonstrations of rural unrest, most of which seem to have occurred in November and December 1830. Local magistrates were often inclined to blame the trouble on the activities of ‘foreigners’. In the south and west of the county, where ‘an immense multitude of peasantry’ gathered at Wotton to compel the rector to reduce the tithes, and where rioting took place at Dorking, the labourers were directly inspired by the more serious events taking place in Sussex.27 The attendance at the county meeting on 19 Mar., summoned to agree a petition to the Commons in support of the Grey ministry’s reform bill, may have been adversely affected by Denison’s erroneous announcement of the date fixed for it; he presented the resulting petition, 21 Mar. 1831. Similar local assemblies were reported at Kingston and Croydon in April, and at Newington in May.28 Both the sitting Members supported the bill and at a meeting in Southwark, 27 Apr. 1831, to promote Briscoe’s return at the ensuing general election, it was decided to couple his name with that of Denison in the resolution. A subscription was raised, for as one speaker warned, ‘the enemy was at work in Surrey’.29 The only evidence of this came in an address published by Henry Drummond† of Albury Park (Briscoe’s sponsor in 1830), in which he expressed serious reservations about the reform bill, particularly the proposed reduction of English Members. However, he disclaimed any wish to provide or provoke an opposition to the sitting Members, whom he subsequently endorsed. On the hustings, Denison reiterated his support for reform and shorter parliaments, while dismissing such radical nostrums as universal suffrage and annual parliaments. He defended Althorp’s budget, but admitted that the proposed tax on the transfer of stock had been a ‘mistake’. Briscoe maintained that the reform bill, ‘far from having a dangerous tendency’, was ‘of a most conservative description’, and he confidently predicted that a reformed Parliament would ‘root out every remnant of corruption’. Both Members maintained that reform would spread ‘peace ... contentment and confidence throughout the United Empire’, give ‘security to property’ and ‘above all ... add fresh lustre and stability to the crown’. After they were declared elected, the meeting ended with three cheers for the king.30 At a freeholders’ meeting addressed by the Members, Edward Penrhyn* of East Sheen, John Maberly and his son William Maberly*, 7 Oct., a petition to the Lords for the speedy passage of the reintroduced reform bill was carried without a dissenting voice; it was apparently not presented. One of the Maberlys was the key speaker at a Croydon meeting in November 1831, when there were complaints against the conduct of the bishops and rumblings that the bill did nothing for the poorer classes.31 The ‘days of May’ in 1832 prompted meetings in support of Grey’s ministry in Camberwell and Southwark, and dinners were given to celebrate the passage of the Reform Act at Dorking (under the aegis of the Members), Wimbledon and Chertsey.32

The Reform Act divided Surrey into East and West, effectively separating the urban and rural districts. Most of the modern county was included in the predominantly rural Western division, which extended as far to the east as Epsom and Dorking.33 Surrey lost out from the redistribution of borough seats, as Bletchingley, Gatton and Haslemere were disfranchised and Reigate lost one Member. Lambeth became a two Member borough, while Southwark’s boundaries were enlarged. The overall representation of the county was thus reduced from 14 seats to 11. At the general election of 1832 Briscoe and another Liberal were returned for East Surrey, and Denison and a fellow Liberal were triumphant in the West. However, Briscoe was defeated in 1835 and the Liberals did not regain their dominance of the Eastern division until 1847. The representation of West Surrey was usually shared after 1835.

Authors: Howard Spencer / Terry Jenkins


  • 1. According to one of the Members, Holme Sumner (The Times, 17 June 1826).
  • 2. PP (1822), xv. 330; (1833), xxxvii. 638, 639; Pigot’s National Dir. (1832-4), 945.
  • 3. C.E. Vulliamy, Onslow Fam. 230-44; The Times, 14 June 1826.
  • 4. Brighton Herald, 19 Feb. 1820.
  • 5. County Chron. 7, 21 Mar. 1820.
  • 6. Ibid. 28 Nov.; Add. 51572, King to Holland, Dec. 1820.
  • 7. HLRO, Hist. Coll. 379, Grey Bennet diary, 10-11, 16; The Times, 3 Feb. 1821; CJ, lxxvi. 51.
  • 8. The Times, 5, 19 Feb. 1822; CJ, lxxvii. 47.
  • 9. Northants. RO, Agar Ellis diary, 15, 18, 19 Jan.; The Times, 11 Feb. 1823; CJ, lxxviii. 73.
  • 10. Add. 40368, ff. 103-8; 40370, f. 36.
  • 11. Brighton Herald, 11 Mar. 1826; CJ, lxxxi. 145.
  • 12. Baldwin’s Weekly Jnl. 8 Apr. 1826.
  • 13. Brighton Herald, 13 May; The Times, 12, 14, 16 June 1826.
  • 14. Add. 40305, f. 186; 40387, ff. 150b, 157, 159.
  • 15. The Times, 14-16 June; Baldwin’s Weekly Jnl. 17 June; County Chron. 20 June; Rutland mss, Douglas to Rutland, 16 June 1826.
  • 16. The Times, 17, 19, 20 June; Baldwin’s Weekly Jnl. 25 June 1826.
  • 17. Add. 40387, ff. 157, 180; Observer, 13 Mar. 1831.
  • 18. Surrey Pollbook (1826); The Times, 16, 20 June; County Chron. 20 June; Add. 51724, Spencer to Holland, 16 June 1826.
  • 19. The Times, 15 June, 18 July 1826; Althorp Letters, 129.
  • 20. The Times, 23 Mar. 1829; CJ, lxxxiv. 173.
  • 21. County Chron. 23 Mar. 1830; CJ, lxxxv. 219.
  • 22. County Chron. 6 July, 3 Aug.; Baldwin’s Weekly Jnl. 24 July; The Times, 6 Aug. 1830; Add. 36466, f. 219.
  • 23. Baldwin’s Weekly Jnl. 31 July, 7 Aug.; County Chron. 3, 10 Aug. 1830.
  • 24. The Times, 6, 7, 9, 10 Aug.; County Chron. 17 Aug. 1830.
  • 25. Ellenborough Diary, ii. 338; Add. 40401, f. 140; Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 20 Aug. 1830.
  • 26. Hants Chron. 16 Aug. 1830; CJ, lxxxvi. 60, 136.
  • 27. E. Hobsbawm and G. Rudé, Captain Swing (1985), 72, 82, 86, 141, 159, 183.
  • 28. The Times, 19 Mar., 10 Apr., 4, 20 May 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 416.
  • 29. The Times, 28 Apr. 1831.
  • 30. County Chron. 3, 10 May; The Times, 6 May 1831.
  • 31. Brighton Herald, 8 Oct.; County Chron. 15 Nov. 1831.
  • 32. The Times, 16-18 May, 26 July, 7, 8 Sept. 1831.
  • 33. PP (1831-2), xl. 33.