Perthshire contained the dividing line between the Lowlands and the Highlands. It was predominantly agricultural, but had some modest textile manufacturing at various locations. The county town of Perth was a constituent burgh of the Perth district, while the other royal burgh, Culross, on the north bank of the Forth in a detached part of the county south of the Ochil Hills, belonged to the Stirling group. Other settlements included Abernethy, Alyth, Auchterarder, Blair Atholl, Blairgowrie, Coupar-Angus, Craig, Crieff, Dunblane, Dunkeld, Longforgan, Pitlochry and Rattray.1 The dominant interest was that of the Tory lord lieutenant, John Murray, 4th duke of Atholl, who had seats at Blair Atholl and Dunkeld. His son-in-law, James Drummond of Tullibardine, a former employee of the East India Company in China and claimant to the attainted peerage of Strathallan, had sat for the county since March 1812. His return at the by-election that month and the general election in October had been opposed with some ferocity by a group of professedly independent landholders, acting in alliance with the Whig peers John Campbell, 4th earl of Breadalbane, of Taymouth, Charles, 8th Baron Kinnaird, of Rossie Priory, and Thomas Robert Hay, 10th earl of Kinnoull, of Duplin Castle (who became a Tory in this period) and the Member for Boston, Peter Robert Drumond Burrell† (later 2nd Baron Gwydir and 22nd Baron Willoughby) of Drummond Castle. The candidate of the anti-Atholl party on both occasions (on the first in absentia) had been the distinguished soldier, Lieutenant-General Thomas Graham of Balgowan (Member on the Atholl interest, 1794-1807), an independent Whig who was removed from the equation by his creation as Lord Lynedoch in 1814. An active participant in these anti-Atholl campaigns was Sir Patrick (Peter) Murray of Ochtertyre, a kinsman of the 1st and 2nd Viscounts Melville and Member for Edinburgh on their interest, 1806-12, whose involvement, motivated by a desire to obtain the county seat for himself, led to his estrangement from the 2nd Viscount Melville, the Liverpool ministry’s Scottish manager. Murray’s bid for the seat as an independent after Graham’s elevation to the peerage was hampered by his reluctance to oppose the government and ended in smoke in 1818. He was subsequently reconciled to Melville, being controversially appointed a Scottish exchequer judge in 1820. Nothing seems to have come of Lynedoch’s desire to have the anti-Atholl association which had been in existence since late 1812 put on a more formal basis.2

The dominance of the Atholl interest was confirmed by Drummond’s unopposed return at the general election of 1820, when he was proposed by Colonel Robert Smythe of Methven and seconded by Sir David Moncrieffe of Moncrieffe.3 At the ‘very thinly attended’ freeholders’ meeting which followed the Michaelmas head court, 3 Oct., the report of the committee appointed on 1 May to evaluate a plan for ‘a more efficient system of police for the suppression of vagrants’ was partially endorsed, and a committee named to consider the implications of the recent opening of the ports to oat imports.4 Celebrations of the abandonment of the bill of pains and penalties against Queen Caroline were marred by ‘some disturbances’ at Crieff, where a mob attacked the houses of non-illuminators; and the inhabitants of that town petitioned Parliament for restoration of Caroline’s name to the liturgy in January 1821.5 Drummond voted for repeal of the additional malt duty, 21 Mar. 1821, when proprietors, tenants and occupiers of the Strathmore district petitioned the Commons to that effect;6 but he divided with government to restore it, 3 Apr. At the annual general county meeting, 30 Apr., Sir Alexander Muir Mackenzie of Delvine and William Macdonald of St. Martin’s proposed resolutions condemning the bill to reform Scottish jury selection procedures brought in by the Whig Thomas Francis Kennedy. Robert Graham and James Miller of Milton moved an amendment for the appointment of a committee to monitor the measure, of which they approved, but this was rejected by 50-4. Communications on agricultural distress and the malt duty were received but not discussed, and Sir George Stewart of Grandtully spoke inaudibly about the colonies and poor laws.7 At the 1821 Michaelmas head court, ten freeholders were added to the roll. Sir Peter Murray chaired the ensuing freeholders’ meeting, which instructed Drummond to co-operate with George Macpherson Grant in his attempt to secure a general turnpike bill for Scotland and to join in efforts to obtain modification of the excise regulations for the relief of local brewers.8 On 18 Feb. 1822 Breadalbane chaired a meeting of justices, commissioners and heritors of the Weem district which appointed a committee to promote a curb on the illicit distillation of whisky. Breadlabane’s son Lord Glenorchy* and John Archibald Stewart of Grandtully were prominent speakers.9 County agriculturists petitioned the Commons for relief from agricultural distress, 22 Apr., and farmers and grain producers for the free export of Scottish spirits to England, 29 Apr. Next day the House received a petition from the provincial synod of Perth against the bill to relieve Catholic peers.10 At the annual county meeting, 30 Apr. 1822, Muir Mackenzie, the chairman, had discussion of the distillery regulations postponed until Atholl and Drummond had seen Lord Liverpool on the subject.11 At a dinner in honour of Atholl, 30 Sept. 1822, the leading men of the county indulged in an orgy of mutual approbation. Few attended the Michaelmas head court next day, when several new freeholders were enrolled. At the freeholders’ meeting, Drummond was instructed to forward the wish of those involved in the linen industry for parity of duties with Ireland. Muir Mackenzie quashed a proposal by Miller that a committee be appointed to consider the corn laws, arguing that the issue should be left to ministers and that opinion in the county was so divided that any committee would be stultified.12 Sir Peter Murray chaired the annual meeting on 30 Apr. 1823, when the turnpike bill issue was shelved and Muir Mackenzie raised the subject of stamping linen cloth, which was beneficial to the ‘poor weaver and small manufacturer’ but a nuisance to the larger manufacturers, who were campaigning to have it abolished. A committee was appointed to resist this pressure, which produced a petition to the Commons, 15 May. Patrick Small Keir of Kinmouth drew attention to the ‘unequal and oppressive’ tax on stone and slate carried coastwise, and Drummond and Atholl were instructed to seek its repeal, which was forthcoming in May.13 At the meeting which followed the 1823 Michaelmas head court, 30 Sept., the report of a committee on the erection of a new county bridewell, which estimated a cost of £10,000, was considered. Muir Mackenzie thought £4,000 should come from Perth and £6,000 from the county, while Atholl hoped ministers could be persuaded to allocate the former French depot for the purpose. Small Keir called for the encouragement of local licensed distillers.14

In August 1823, when Drummond’s restoration to the Strathallan peerage was considered imminent, the Tory Francis Stuart, 10th earl of Moray, of Doune Lodge asked Atholl and Melville to support his younger son John Stuart, an army officer, in the event of a vacancy.15 Drummond duly announced his retirement in the second week of March 1824, but only Sir Peter Murray’s younger brother Sir George, a general officer who had been the duke of Wellington’s quartermaster general and right hand man in the Peninsular and French campaigns and had just been appointed lieutenant-general of the ordnance, offered in his room. His reputed ‘liberal’ Tory views made him acceptable to the Whig peers, who in any case had no one to field against him. At the election meeting he was proposed by Belsches of Invermay and seconded by Captain Drummond of Megginch. Returning thanks, he confirmed his attachment to ‘the glorious constitution’. It was ‘confidently asserted’ immediately afterwards that Henry Home Drummond, Member for Stirlingshire, would offer for Perthshire at the next election, but no more came of this, and Stuart remained Murray’s only plausible challenger.16 They both canvassed in October 1824. The following month the Rev. John Inglis, a Perthshire freeholder, sought Melville’s guidance as to his response to canvassing applications from Murray and Stuart: he understood that their political principles were broadly similar and had no wish to oppose the man favoured by government, but was unwilling, as a clergyman, to commit himself to Murray in view of the recent scandal of his citation for criminal conversation with the estranged but not yet divorced wife of Sir James Erskine, with whom he had produced a daughter in 1822. Melville asked him at least not to oppose Murray, even if he could not in conscience vote for him.17

Perthshire and Dunblane notaries petitioned the Commons for repeal of the duty on their licences in April 1824.18 At the annual county meeting, chaired by Francis Gray, 14th Lord Gray, of Faunis Castle, Muir Mackenzie carried a unanimous vote of thanks to Drummond for his parliamentary services. He proposed and Sir Peter Murray seconded the appointment of a committee to examine the pending Scottish poor bill, of which they were suspicious. Despite Glenorchy’s protest, this was done. On the county bridewell, it was reported that use of the French depot had turned out to be impractical, and after some discussion the meeting accepted the committee’s recommendation of a new building costing £9,000, of which three fifths was to be defrayed by the county and two by the burgh. Atholl and Sir George Murray were urged to seek freedom of trade for Scottish distillers. At a county meeting, 4 June, it was confirmed that the Scottish poor bill had been withdrawn, but Muir Mackenzie carried hostile resolutions for the record. He secured a petition to the Lords against the Scottish juries bill, which does not appear to have been presented.19 At a ‘thinly attended’ county meeting called to consider the proposed bill for regulating procedures in the Scottish courts, 13 Aug., Muir Mackenzie proposed the appointment of a monitoring committee and resolutions deprecating any interference with ‘the venerable code of judicature’. Miller of Milton’s amendment for an open committee was not seconded, and the body which was named consisted mostly of Edinburgh residents. Muir Mackenzie presented their report at the Michaelmas meeting, 5 Oct. 1824, when Kinnoull was in the chair. This approved of some aspects of the measure, but pronounced it to be ‘replete with error’ and in need of extensive alterations. After a desultory discussion Muir Mackenzie’s resolutions to that effect were carried by 47-9, with Miller and his son and James Mellis Nairne of Dunsinane among the minority. The advocate George Kinloch moved resolutions supporting judicial reform, which were rejected by 46-10; John Campbell of Kinloch joined the minority on this occasion.20 A meeting of proprietors and farmers, chaired by Moncrieffe, 15 Apr. 1825, petitioned Parliament against any interference with the corn laws. The issue was raised, by requisition of some landholders of Gowrie, at the annual meeting, 30 Apr., when Douglas Gordon Hallyburton* of Pitcur, Forfarshire, brother of the 5th earl of Aboyne, was in the chair. The general consensus was to shelve the subject, as government did not intend to legislate that session, and this was done despite the protests of Miller, a supporter of repeal.21 At the Michaelmas meeting, chaired by Kinnoull, 4 Oct. 1825, when the need to improve the navigation of the River Tay was discussed, Glenorchy proposed and Gordon Halyburton seconded a vote of thanks to Kennedy and Melville for the Scottish Juries Act of last session. Muir Mackenzie argued that it differed so widely from Kennedy’s original measure that thanks were inappropriate, and carried the previous question by 30-14. Gwydir, Charles Elphinstone Fleeming†, uncle of the 13th Lord Elphinstone, and Colonel Drummond of Kelty were among those who joined Glenorchy, Gordon Hallyburton, the Millers and Nairne in the minority.22 The county procurators petitioned the Commons for repeal of the duty on their licenses, 27 Feb. 1826.23 There was intensive petitioning against interference with the Scottish banking system that session; and a county meeting chaired by Kinnoull, 7 Mar., was unanimous in its condemnation of this threat. The annual meeting on 1 May 1826 received a letter from Atholl indicating that ministers were now unlikely to meddle.24

Sir George Murray had been transferred from the ordnance to the army command in Ireland in February 1825, and it was from Dublin that he confirmed his candidature for the impending general election, 29 May 1826. Stuart had dropped out, and the only ‘obstruction’ Murray ‘met with in his canvass’ occurred when the horses drawing his carriage were brought down by a drain cover in George Street, Perth. His return was proposed by Colonel Paterson of Castle Huntly and seconded by John Archibald Stewart of Murthly. Murray applauded the successful outcome of the Scottish banking inquiry, declared his support for the ‘purity’ of the constitution and said he would resist incautious interference with the corn laws.25 The unusually brief Michaelmas meeting, 3 Oct. 1826, showed little enthusiasm for Sir John Sinclair’s† attempt to start a campaign against corn law revision, but a committee was appointed for form’s sake.26 Proprietors and farmers of the county and tenants and occupiers of Callander, Comrie, Crieff, Monivard and Muthill petitioned against interference with the laws in 1827.27 At the county meeting called to consider the government’s proposals, 19 Mar., when Gray took the chair, Muir Mackenzie proposed resolutions approving of the principle but criticizing details and the appointment of a scrutinizing committee. Atholl and Murray were instructed to oppose any attempt to ‘continue the permission to introduce foreign grain into warehouses on merely granting bond for duties’. An amendment moved by Patrick Gilbert Stewart, provost of Perth, and seconded by Ross of Oakbank, to the effect that the ministerial measure left the duties too high, was defeated by 27-6. Kinnoull and Stewart subsequently exchanged public letters about this episode. Not much was said about the corn laws at the annual general meeting, 30 Apr.28 ‘Little or no business of importance’ was transacted at the Michaelmas 1827 meeting, but Miller criticized as exorbitant the fees of sheriffs’ clerks.29 Farmers of Callander, Comrie, Crieff and Muthill petitioned the Commons against the Wellington ministry’s corn bill, 17 Apr., as did proprietors and farmers of the county, 13 May 1828. That day the House received a petition for protection against imports of foreign wool, hides and tallow from owners and occupiers of the central district.30 Smythe of Methven chaired a dull annual meeting, 30 Apr., when a committee was appointed to consider the spirit licensing bill.31 At the end of May 1828 Murray was appointed colonial secretary in the reshuffle which followed the resignation of the Huskissonites from the Wellington ministry. He pleaded ‘pressure of public business’ as his excuse for not attending his unopposed re-election, 17 June, when his brother represented him, and he was sponsored by John Archibald Stewart of Grandtully (now a baronet) and John Grant of Kilgraston.32 At a poorly attended Michaelmas head court, 30 Sept. 1828, Small Keir raised an ‘awkward’ question arising out of the fact that he had been the only member of the committee which customarily met to consider claims for enrollment who had actually attended: he declined to pronounce on the claims, feeling that the responsibility was too much for one man, and expressed a hope that in future the committee’s lawyer members would be ‘more attentive to their duty’. At the ensuing freeholders’ meeting, committees were set up to examine recent ‘obnoxious’ changes to the excise regulations, the controversial Scottish gaols bill and a proposal to amend the law of Scottish entail. Douglas Kinnaird† tried to allay alarm on this subject with an assertion that ministers were unlikely to infringe vested rights.33 The presbytery of Auchterarder petitioned the Lords against Catholic relief, 13 May 1828, and did so against emancipation (which Murray of course supported), 10 Mar. 1829. There were hostile petitions from the inhabitants of Auchterarder and Dunblane, and the ministers, elders and inhabitants of Callander and Dunblane, the inhabitants of Crieff, and a favourable one from the county’s procurators.34 At the general meeting, 30 Apr., no action was taken on the report of the committee on the excise laws and no report was forthcoming from the committee on entails.35 At the Michaelmas 1829 head court, chaired by James Hay of Seggieden, 29 Sept., when only ten men were present at the start of proceedings, a dozen new claimants were enrolled, having been vetted and approved by the standing committee. Committees were appointed to consider a bill for regulation of the Scottish poor laws and the gaols bill, but it was decided not to join Dunbartonshire in campaigning against excise regulations. A meeting of the justices further considered the gaols bill, 27 Oct. 1829.36 Nothing of significance was reported from the annual meeting, 30 Apr. 1830.37 Proprietors and occupiers of land attending the weekly Dundee corn market and members of the Perthshire Agricultural Society petitioned both Houses for a duty on West Indian rum equivalent to that on Scottish spirits, 17, 25 May, 3 June.38 A county meeting chaired by Gray, 25 June 1830, when Muir Mackenzie and Smythe took a prominent part, instructed Atholl and Murray to support the London-Edinburgh road bill.39

Murray was unable to attend proceedings at the 1830 general election on account of his ‘official duties’, but there was no hint of opposition. Sir Peter again stood in for him, while Gordon Hallyburton proposed and James Clerk Rattray of Craighall seconded his nomination.40 Only local matters attracted the attention of the Michaelmas freeholders’ meeting, 5 Oct. 1830.41 Atholl died on 29 Sept., leaving an imbecile elder son. Kinnoull immediately staked his claim with Wellington to the lord lieutenancy, referring to his constant residence, large estates and support for government. Melville told the premier that Murray would be able to say whether or not the county would accept Atholl’s younger son Lord Glenlyon, a lord of the bedchamber, and named Kinnoull and Breadalbane (for whom his son-in-law Lord Chandos* put in a word) as the only other feasible candidates. Kinnoull was appointed.42 Petitions for the abolition of slavery were sent to both Houses from Alyth, Auchterarder, Balbiggie, Comrie, Coupar-Angus, Craigend, Crieff, Dunblane, Dunkeld, Errol, Kinclaven, Lethendy, Logie Almond, Methven, Muthill, Pitcairn and Pitrodie between 9 Dec. 1830 and 18 Apr. 1831.43 Procurators again petitioned the Commons for repeal of the duty on their certificates, 4 Feb., 14 Mar. 1831.44 In February 1831 the proprietors, occupiers, householders and inhabitants of Auchterarder petitioned both Houses for a householder franchise, increased Scottish representation, triennial parliaments and the ballot; and the council and inhabitants of Blairgowrie, the inhabitants of Little Dunkeld, Rattray, Blairgowrie and Coupar-Angus and farmers of the central district sought reform of the Scottish representative system.45 The Grey ministry’s reform scheme elicited favourable petitions from Auchterarder, Comrie, Crieff and Dunkeld. The presbytery of Dunblane petitioned for Scottish clerics to be allowed to vote, 12, 14 Apr.46 By requisition, the county met to consider the proposals under the chairmanship of Sir Neil Menzies, 31 Mar. Letters for and against the plan were read, including one from Breadalbane, who approved in principle but thought some details of the Scottish bill required alteration. Muir Mackenzie proposed and Grant of Kilgraston seconded resolutions denouncing all the bills as revolutionary and the Scottish one as unconstitutional, but professing willingness to support ‘gradual and moderate reform’. Murray’s letter expressing hostility to the government scheme was read. Glenorchy and John Stuart moved an amendment endorsing the plan, especially the Scottish bill, which was rejected by 58-36; Gordon Hallyburton, Miller, Kinloch and Campbell of Kinloch were among those in the minority, which the Scottish solicitor-general Henry Cockburn thought ‘by far the best appearance as reformers of any Scotch county’.47 At the general election precipitated by the defeat of the English bill, Murray declared his willingness to accept ‘prudent amelioration’. The supporters of the ministry could ‘find no efficient opponent’, but Glenorchy, who as the eldest son of a Scottish peer was currently debarred from standing for a Scottish seat, announced his intention of doing so after the passage of reform, by which this disqualification was to be removed. A crowded annual general meeting, 30 Apr., dealt with the law of hypothec, turnpikes and statute labour, but evidently did not spend any time on reform. At the election ten days later, Sir George Murray was proposed by Smythe and seconded by Murray of Murrayshall. He repeated the words of his address and stressed the importance of ‘the influence of property’ as a prerequisite of national stability.48 In mid-June 1831 Breadalbane informed Lord Holland, a member of the cabinet, that ‘some pains have been taken by our opponents in Perthshire to circulate a report that ... Glenorchy was to be called to the House of Peers’. He discounted this, as Glenorchy remained determined to stand for the county at the first reformed election. Two weeks later Glenorchy, at Holland’s request, explained the situation in Perthshire, which had been ‘long completely ruled by the Tory interest, at the head of which was the late duke of Atholl’. He confirmed his intention of standing, with every hope of success, but was concerned to have learned that if Murray sought re-election ‘many of the Whig interest from private friendship and other motives, consider themselves pledged to support him’. He asserted that he was the only Whig who could defeat Murray and asked Holland to secure an early decision as to whether or not he was to be offered a call to the Lords.49 In the event, Breadalbane was promoted to a marquessate, 12 Sept. 1831, when Glenorchy took the courtesy title of Lord Ormelie.

Perthshire landowners and barley growers of Gowrie and Dunkeld petitioned the Commons against permitting the use of molasses in brewing and distilling, 24 Aug. 1831.50 Petitions to the Lords in favour of the reform plan were sent up from Abernethy, Alyth, Auchterarder, Comrie, Crieff, Dunblane and Dunkeld, and from the county’s procurators, 30 Sept.-6 Oct.51 In the House, 3 Oct., Murray welcomed the decision to give Perth a Member of its own, but protested against the proposal to remove the detached parishes of Perthshire, including Culross, from the county constituency and to unite them with that of Clackmannan and Kinross. At the Michaelmas meeting next day, chaired by Ormelie, Muir Mackenzie proposed but did not press a petition in support of Murray’s planned attempt to obtain two Members for Perthshire and the other larger Scottish counties. A committee was appointed to monitor the molasses issue.52 In late November a select and unpublicized meeting of the county’s leading Conservatives and anti-reformers devised petitions to Parliament against ‘sweeping’ reform and an address thanking the king for condemning the political unions and refusing to create peers to carry reform through the Lords. These were left open for signatures at the county hall in Perth. In response, the Perthshire Whigs and reformers, headed by Breadalbane, the 1st earl of Camperdown of Gleneagles, Lord Kinnaird, the 5th earl of Dunmore, the 2nd Baron Abercromby of Tullibody, Clackmannan and his son George Ralph Abercromby*, Lynedoch, Ormelie, Glenlyon, Stewart of Grandtully, Elphinstone Fleeming and Gordon Hallyburton called a county meeting to demonstrate and express in petitions and an address the ‘true feelings’ of the county. It was held on 16 Dec. 1831, when Ormelie took the chair and Gordon Hallyburton, Elphinstone Fleeming, Sir James Ramsay of Banff, Laurence Oliphant of Condie, Robert Graham of Redgorton, Nairne, Charles Robertson of Buttergask, a farmer, and Thomas Condier of Pitwhanatrie were the principal speakers. Provost Stewart and Miller were among others who attended, while letters of apology were received from Breadalbane, Glenlyon, Camperdown, Kinnaird, John Stuart, Stewart of Grandtully, Campbell of Kinloch, Lynedoch and the 8th Lord Rollo of Duncrub, who complained that his name had been ‘unwarrantably used by the Conservative party in their circular’.53 Murray presented the anti-reform petition to the Commons, 20 Jan. 1832, but Jeffrey, the lord advocate, did not produce the pro-reform one until 23 May, after the main crisis was over. Murray then conceded that it was respectably signed, but argued that it had been promoted by falsely portraying the petitioners against reform as the enemies of all change. Gordon Hallyburton stated that some 15,000 had attended and that the tone of the meeting had been essentially moderate.54 When Lynedoch presented the pro-reform petition to the Lords, 26 Jan., he denounced the ‘Ultra Tories of Perthshire’, who had ‘had the prudence to avoid calling a meeting, except of those individuals who entertain the same sentiments as themselves’, and claimed that an attempt to procure signatures by an assertion of the ‘feudal authority’ of the duke of Montrose had failed. He put the attendance at the reform meeting as high as 25,000 and suggested that the late duke of Atholl, who had earned and deserved his ‘considerable influence’ in Perthshire, would have supported reform as the work of ministers of the crown. The Ultra earl of Mansfield, who had large estates in the county centred on Scone Palace, alleged that the meeting had been irregularly called and that extreme language had been used, notably by Oliphant in urging the exclusion of the bishops from Parliament. Lynedoch denied any knowledge of this, but in an ill-judged attempt to prove the strength of pro-reform feeling in Scotland alleged that weavers of a village near Perth had danced in the streets on being told after the Lords’ rejection of the English reform bill in October 1831 that Wellington and Mansfield had been assassinated. This outraged the former Tory lord chancellor Eldon and was exploited by Murray in his speech of 23 May 1832. Kinnoull presented the anti-reform petition without comment, 31 Jan.55 Maltsters and distillers of Perthshire petitioned the Commons against the malt drawback bill, 29 Feb. 1832.56 Petitions against the ministerial scheme for Irish education were received from the presbyteries of Auchterarder and Dunblane, 16 Apr., and the provincial synod of Perth and Stirling, 23 May.57 The annual general meeting, 30 Apr., declared against any change in the law of hypothec; a petition to this effect from Perthshire Agricultural Association reached the Commons, 14 June 1832, when the owners of farming stock petitioned for reduction of the duty on fire insurances.58

On 1 June 1832 Murray failed by 168-61 to secure two Members for Perthshire and seven other counties. His amendment against the ‘dismemberment’ of the county by the transfer of Culross, Muckhart, Tulliallan and parts of the parishes of Fossaway and Logie to Clackmanan and Kinross was defeated by 54-24, 15 June 1832. By the Scottish Reform Act, Perth returned a Member of its own (Oliphant) and Culross burgh remained in the Stirling district. Perthshire’s registered electorate for the general election of December 1832 was 3,134. Ormelie defeated Murray by 574 votes in a poll of 2,754.59 When Ormelie succeeded his father in 1834, Murray defeated a fellow Conservative by 204 votes in a poll of 2,732, but he was defeated by a Liberal in 1835. The Conservatives had the upper hand until the county was divided in 1884.60