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 3,500

Number of voters:

3,355 in 1826


15 Mar. 1820WILLIAM LOWTHER, Visct. Lowther1530
 Henry Peter Brougham1349
22 June 1826WILLIAM LOWTHER, Visct. Lowther2097
 Henry Peter Brougham1377
16 June 1828Visct. Lowther, re-elected after appointment to office 
6 Aug. 1830WILLIAM LOWTHER, Visct. Lowther 
 Alexander NOWELL 

Main Article

A mountainous Lakeland county, Westmorland comprised four wards: Kendal, Lonsdale, East and West - the first two derived from the barony of Westmorland, the last two from that of Appleby. The county and assize town of Appleby, Westmorland’s only parliamentary borough, had been eclipsed in size and local importance by the textile and shoe manufacturing town of Kendal on the River Kent, where enclosure and canal building to improve communications with Lancaster and Preston were in progress and legislation for an improved road network sought.1 The county had been contested in 1818, when the ability of the largest landowner, the Tory lord lieutenant William Lowther†, 1st earl of Lonsdale (39,229 acres), to exercise his ‘proprietorial’ control of the representation by returning his eldest sons had been severely challenged by the Whig lawyer Henry Brougham* of Brougham Hall, near Penrith, who, setting aside the prior claims of William Crackenthorpe of Newbiggin and John Wharton* of Skelton Castle, Yorkshire, ran them a close third in what he promised was only the first blow in the Blues’ war of attrition against the Yellow Lowthers; the struggle was also played out in Carlisle and Cumberland.2 Party spirit, long dormant, was fostered at Westmorland Society functions and ‘independence’ dinners in London, Appleby and Kendal, where politics centred on the exclusion of wealthy Dissenters from the corporation, and was fuelled by a partisan press, represented locally by the Whig Westmorland Advertiser and Kendal Chronicle, edited by the Unitarian minister Richard Harrison, in which the Kendal Quaker and Blue banker Jacob Wakefield was a major shareholder, and Thomas de Quincy’s Westmorland Gazette and Kendal Advertiser, inspired by William Wordsworth and financed by the Lowthers.3 The Yellows were three months into their canvass for the next election when the Blues, who turned to Cumberland for gentry support, rallied at the county Peterloo meeting, 21 Oct. 1819, convened by Brougham’s principal supporter, the hereditary sheriff and second largest landowner Sackville Tufton, 9th earl of Thanet (17,093 acres), the co-patron with Lonsdale of Appleby. The Yellows stayed away and responded to the speeches of Brougham, Crackenthorpe and Thomas Wybergh of Isell through the caustic pens of their partisans Percy Bysshe Shelley and Wordsworth, and forwarded a loyal address to the regent circulated by William Wilson Carus Wilson* of Casterton. Lonsdale had packed the magistracy with his partisans, and the only Tories with sufficient votes at their command to claim any independence were Greville Howard* of Levens Hall, Carus Wilson’s brother-in-law Edward Hasell of Dalemain and his kinsmen Daniel Wilson of Dallam Tower and Edward Wilson of Abbott Hall and Ringmaiden.4

Henry Lowther’s prompt announcement that he and his elder brother Lord Lowther, a lord of the treasury currently holidaying in France, sought re-election in 1820 dispelled the notion that Lonsdale might compromise or switch one of his sons to Cumberland, which Wordsworth and their agents cautioned strongly against.5 The Yellows’ dinner at the London Tavern, 4 Feb., was chaired by the Westmorland-born London alderman William Thompson* and addressed by their Members for Carlisle and Appleby, Sir James Graham* and his son-in-law Colonel Augustus John Dalrymple*, who chaired Lord Lowther’s committee. Their declaration of satisfaction with and support for the sitting Members was publicized with another heavily signed by freeholders resident in the county, Cumberland and Lancashire.6 By 15 Feb., when similar addresses were adopted and local committees appointed at Appleby, where Hasell as the quarter sessions chairman chaired a meeting of the East and West ward freeholders, both sides privately predicted the Lowthers’ success, notwithstanding Brougham’s confident public professions.7 He had announced his candidature as an opportunity for ‘Westmorland to assert its independence’, 30 Jan., six days before receiving confirmation of Thanet’s support, and applied in vain for that of the 6th duke of Devonshire, whose son-in-law Lord Morpeth† he had assisted to his own detriment in Cumberland in 1818.8 Brougham’s local campaign was managed as previously by his brother James Brougham* and Crackenthorpe. Thanet’s Appleby agent John Heelis, the Wakefields and the leader of the London Blues, James Atkinson, rallied their friends to hear Brougham at the London Tavern, 19 Feb., when, heeding their closest advisers, he broached the plan of creating a diversion by forcing a poll in Cumberland, where one-and-one representation had prevailed since 1774.9 Thanet, who criticized the Blues for repeating the mistake of 1818 by canvassing too late, declined to make the cause his own and attributed his continued involvement, funded by a successful gambling spree, to private pique at his recent treatment by Lonsdale and ‘the chance of future success’.10 On 11 Mar., with the canvass almost complete, Brougham claimed 1,100-1,200 votes. The Lowthers, encouraged by the exertions of Wilson of Dallam Tower, reckoned that he would poll 896 to their 1,630 with a further 430 ‘doubtful’ and 62 ‘neuter’.11 Lord Lowther was proposed for the third time, 15 Mar., by Hasell and Carus Wilson, who praised him as a ‘church and state’ candidate, attentive to public business, and as a defender of the Liverpool ministry’s repressive legislation after Peterloo. The assertions of Henry Lowther’s proposers, Thomas Holme Maude of Kendal and Matthew Atkinson of Temple Sowerby, that their candidate stood independently of his brother were ridiculed by Brougham’s proposer Wybergh, who criticized Lonsdale’s ‘pertinacity’ in attempting both seats, but upheld his right to one, and defined the Blues’ target as Henry Lowther. Crackenthorpe, seconding in Jacob Wakefield’s absence, praised Brougham and condemned the Six Acts. His vehement criticism of Sir James Graham’s defence of the Lowthers in subsequent exchanges unleashed a late popular campaign to put up John Christian Curwen* of Workington Hall, the Blue Member for Carlisle, against their Cumberland nominees two days later ‘free of charge’, so creating at minimal expense the diversion the party leaders had advocated.12 The show of hands was overwhelmingly for Brougham, who fared well in daily exchanges with Lord Lowther and Carus Wilson. After trailing on the first day, on the second he finished in first place. Lord Lowther nudged ahead on the third but Brougham overtook him on the fourth to lead by 931-920-857. Thanet’s daily reports to the Hollands described the contribution of Lowther bludgeon men to the unrest and the steps taken by both parties to ‘get possession’ of the ward polling booths. Like Brougham, who was unstinting in his praise for the exertions of his brothers James and William Brougham*, Thanet revelled in their early success but warned that the premature conclusion of the Cumberland contest by Morpeth’s retirement on the second day would focus attention on Westmorland, ‘where the Lowther voters are evidently slack, but good reasons may still perhaps bring them up’: the poll on the fifth day, and the numbers denying Henry Lowther second votes would decide the election.13 Troops were summoned from Penrith that day to quell disturbances and Brougham slipped to second place behind Lord Lowther. He dropped to third on the sixth day and conceded defeat on the next with the poll at 1,530-1,412-1,349 and the ‘county fairly polled out’.14 An estimated 2,810 voted, 764 (37 per cent) more than in 1818; 46 votes remained undecided.15 Brougham took the East ward by 540-399, an increase of 90 on his 1818 majority, but he trailed narrowly (500-541) as previously in Kendal ward. The Lowthers remained invincible in the West and Lonsdale wards, which they took by 417-215 and 173-94. Voting consistency, estimated at 90 per cent for both parties between 1818 and 1820, was high. Only 103 (less than four per cent) split their votes across the parties, mostly (98) for Lord Lowther and Brougham.16

Lord Liverpool congratulated Lonsdale on the result and the Whig opposition blamed Brougham and Thanet for causing Morpeth’s defeat, which they in turn insisted was a regrettable outcome of Cavendish hostility and a local triumph for the Blues that augured well for their next attempt.17 The Times highlighted Brougham’s majority among the ‘substantial freeholders’, 300 of whom dined at the London Tavern, 15 Apr. 1820, to mark his achievement.18 The five per cent swing from the Lowthers since 1818 was credited to the creation of new voters in the East and Kendal Wards unbeknown to the Lowthers and Hasell’s failure to secure his tenants’ votes.19 Allegations of ‘mushroom’ voters and bogus freeholds persisted on both sides and Atkinson of Temple Sowerby, who complained that the county was ‘fast approaching universal suffrage’, urged his friends to match the activity of the Blues, or ‘Brougham will not only succeed at another contested election but likewise may oust the Lowthers entirely’.20 Lonsdale’s agents, who had spent £26,460 and were keen to cut costs, estimated that they would need 500-1,000 new voters to retain both seats, preferably ‘people within a reasonable distance of Appleby, who may be kept back until after the second or third day, or until it is ascertained whether the contest requires their attendance’. By October 1820, 262 new freeholders had been registered (183 Yellows, 71 Blues and eight ‘doubtful’).21 Thanet’s payments and subscriptions channelled though Wakefield’s Kendal bank and the London Houses of Atkinson and of Glyn and Company fell far short of the £15,000 spent by the Blues, double their 1818 costs.22

Local legislation enacted in the 1820 Parliament authorized enclosures at Whitwell and Kirkby Kendal (1832) and improvements to the Ambleside-Appleby and Appleby-Kendal roads (1824).23 As hitherto, the Members supported the Liverpool administration and voted against parliamentary reform and Catholic relief, which their partisans among the clergy of the Kendal and Lonsdale deaneries, the corporation of Kendal and the inhabitants of Burton-in-Kendal, Kirkby Lonsdale, and Milthorpe opposed in petitions to both Houses, 17 Apr. 1821, 17 June 1822, 18, 22, 24 Apr. 1825.24 The agriculturists’ distress petitions adopted during the election campaign were received by the Commons, 17 May 1820.25 They petitioned again, 23 Feb. 1821, 13 Feb. 1822, when Brougham took up the cause, and supported Curwen’s campaign to repeal the tax on sheepdogs, 12 May 1824.26 Merchants, manufacturers and others involved in Kendal’s woollen trade petitioned regularly for protective tariffs to limit the importation of rags for worsted manufacture, while the wool producers of the West ward sought continued restrictions on importing ‘long wool’.27 Brougham’s role as Queen Caroline’s attorney-general gave added interest to her prosecution, which the Lowthers supported. It was the explanation given for Brougham’s failure to ‘wait’ on the freeholders after the election or attend the Kendal races in September 1820.28 The Gazette reported that Kendal’s 1,300-signature address to the queen ‘was placarded and runners were sent all over the town to procure signatures on market day’ and it denounced the celebrations and anti-Lowther petitioning at Ambleside, Appleby, Burton, Cartmel and Kendal, which marked the abandonment of the bill of pains and penalties, as the work of ‘the veriest rabble’.29 Petitions from the gentry, freeholders and inhabitants of Kendal, requesting restoration of the queen’s name to the liturgy, attributed the failure of her prosecution to public opinion.30 Kendal’s Unitarians forwarded petitions to Brougham in April 1822, for presentation to both Houses, requesting the right to be married by their own clergy.31 The county’s Dissenters forwarded petitions for the abolition of colonial slavery in 1823, 1824 and 1826 to the Westmorland-born secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society Thomas Clarkson, and four Kendal congregations also petitioned to support Brougham’s motion of complaint against the indictment in Demerara of the Methodist missionary John Smith, 31 May 1824.32 Petitions were received from Kendal’s artisans and mill workers, the ‘low’ Blues, for repeal of the combination laws, 12 May 1824, and for corn law revision, 23, 24 Feb. 1826, which the Members and petitions from most owner occupiers and tradesmen opposed, 29 Apr. 1825.33 Petitions were also sent up from Kendal for measures against hawkers and pedlars, 3 Mar. 1823, repeal of the duty on publicans’ licenses, 23 Mar., and against the hides and skins bill, 17 Mar. 1824. Others wanted the county court bill’s debt provisions enacted, 2 Mar., 31 May, and repeal of the coastwise coal duty, 17 Mar. 1825.34 A bipartisan declaration of support headed by the mayor George Forrest enabled the Kendal banks of Wakefield and Sons and Wilson, Crewdson and Company to continue trading throughout the 1825-6 crisis.35

Thanet’s death in January 1825 and the succession of his brother Charles, who put the solvency of his estates before politics, heralded a flurry of speculation and partisan negotiations when an early general election was anticipated in the autumn. The succession of Wilson’s son-in-law, the Whig militia colonel George Smyth (afterwards Wilson), to Dallam Tower and Edward Williams Hasell to Dalemain caused uncertainty, and a virulent anti-Brougham campaign was waged by the Lowther press following the defection to the Gazette of Tyron Redhead, who had edited the Advertiser since 1822.36 In discussions with the Blues and the Lowthers in July and September 1825, for which Lord Frederick Cavendish Bentinck*, George Hatton†, Stephen Rumbold Lushington* and Lord Kensington† were the intermediaries, Thanet signalled his opposition to the return of ‘two’ Lowther brothers, but said he would not spend or ‘consent to make his single seat for Appleby subservient to the general interest of ... party’. The negotiations failed, but during them the Lowthers, who were offered Dallam Tower as Henry’s election headquarters, became confident that their worst fear, the joint candidature of Brougham and Thanet’s younger brother Henry Tufton*, would not materialize. The Lowthers also learnt of an unsuccessful attempt by Whig leaders to dissuade Brougham, whose affairs were in a ‘fine unintelligible confusion’, from renewing his challenge; and that Lord Grey’s son-in-law John Lambton* would no longer finance him, Lord Darlington had promised assistance and Westmorland remained ‘on a general retainer’.37 Reviewing in a letter to Lonsdale ‘the circumstances of this unusual contest ... avowedly carried on to annoy you in point of expense and also to weaken the strongest aristocratic support of the government’, Lord Lowther suggested funding future county polls by selling their borough seats and reasoned, ‘Brougham is a clever firebrand that rarely appears. It is unfortunate he should have been inflicted upon the northern counties, but it our duty to check the mischief’.38

When the election was called in 1826 Brougham was suffering from one of the depressions to which he was prone and few of his parliamentary friends believed his optimistic accounts of his prospects, which The Times and the Carlisle Journal circulated.39 According to his campaign manager James Brougham, the outcome depended on the loyalty of about 500 new voters he had himself created since 1820.40 The parties turned out in force for the Westmorland Society dinner, 2 May, and the usual committees were formed, addresses circulated, converts named, bogus freeholds exposed and heavily signed declarations of support for the candidates advertised.41 Raising the ‘No-Popery’ cry, the Yellows baited the leading Blue Catholic, Henry Howard of Corby Castle, by prevaricating over imposing the long oath to prevent him voting, criticized Brougham’s support for relief and corn law revision and depicted him as a Papist with a nervous twitch. The Blues highlighted Brougham’s support for the anti-slavery campaign, retrenchment and lower taxes, called for an end to the Lowthers’ monopoly and misappropriation of the St. Bees coal revenues, and lampooned the dapper Lord Lowther as a Lonsdale ‘dwarf’ and Henry Lowther, a man of few words who attended Parliament infrequently, as the ‘silent Colonel’.42 Thanet’s agents compensated for Brougham’s late start by arranging the election for 22 June, ‘the last day that could be fixed’. It excluded the possibility of a late anti-Lowther distraction in Cumberland, where Lonsdale lacked suitable candidates and the ‘unpopular’ Curwen had ‘neglected’ to sign Brougham’s requisition, and instead plans were laid to compromise the Blues in Lancashire where, ostensibly in retaliation for Lord Stanley’s* support for Brougham, Lonsdale backed the abortive candidature of the nabob Alexander Nowell of Underley, who desisted when it became apparent that the return of John Blackburne*, the anti-Catholic Tory whose committee Carus Wilson chaired, would be at risk.43 Opposition to the Manchester gas bill cost the Lowthers support, but Lonsdale’s son-in-law, the judge advocate John Beckett*, was rightly confident in their canvass, hospitality and transport committees, and certain that Brougham lacked funds to bring in out-voters.44 On 20 June he informed the home secretary Peel, who oversaw the election for the government, that success was assured, although Brougham’s ‘mob may occupy the polling booths for a day or two’.45 In stupefying heat at Appleby two days later Lord Lowther was proposed by his committee chairman Carus Wilson and Edward Wilson of Abbott Hall and his brother by Wilson of Dallam Tower and Maude, who maintained that the ‘sense of the resident gentry’ was against Brougham.46 He was nominated as previously, spent £9,000 to the Lowthers’ £30,000 and trailed hopelessly in third place for nine tumultuous days before conceding defeat, 646 behind Henry Lowther in second place, still promising to try ‘again and again’.47 By his own account Brougham

kept open the poll to the last. It is said that they had still a batch of mushrooms, which they did not venture to poll (Mr. Hawlet the jeweller’s), said to be near 200. It may be so, but at least they polled all their other votes to the dregs and some hundreds of mushrooms besides. Our promises amounted, without including a single mushroom, to above a hundred more than they polled, but we gave over trying to bring them up the last five days, finding the impression so strong among our people that it was in vain, they having 1,500 mushrooms to overwhelm us with. Had we begun with bringing up our stragglers, above 500 scattered, we should have got those who were in masses to come together. As it was, the expense would have been ruinous, even had we been prepared with means of conveyance. The season and the zeal was quite enough (as on the first occasion) to bring all, had not the alarm of mushrooms operated to stop them. I took care to address them at the close on all right topics, first to set myself right with the world out of Westmorland by showing it was no object of mine to be a county Member, next to take care our defeat did no damage to the Catholic question and to the general cause of right principles. I made for this purpose a greater exertion than I have done these 12 months past ... The enemy (as happens always at the end) had possession of the multitude and ... their plan was to drown me ... Indeed, the day before they had almost done so, though I got the better, but today I beat them hollow and kept them attentive and silent in spite of themselves.48

Contrary to the Lowthers, he maintained that the ‘No Popery’ cry did him no harm.49 Whishaw, who heard it from Brougham’s counsel Vizard, informed Lady Holland that his case had been ‘desperate from the first’ and would remain so in Lord Lowther’s lifetime.50

According to Stoker’s analysis, of 3,455 polled (23 per cent more than in 1820), 50 per cent, an additional eight per cent, were ‘new’ voters. Consistency was higher among the Yellows (65-59 per cent) and contributed to the eight per cent swing to the Lowthers.51 Only 82 (two per cent) split their votes across the parties. Brougham took the East ward with a vastly reduced majority (554-536) and lost hopelessly in Kendal ward (476-720) and the Lowther strongholds of West ward (258-579) and Lonsdale ward (68-262).52 Heated exchanges continued over the often violent contributions made to the election by the Broughams’ Whinnyrigg freeholders, the ‘low’ Blues of Carlisle and Kendal, Lonsdale’s collier voters and the Liverpool ‘slave’ merchant John Bolton of Storrs’s 200 ‘mushrooms’; and Howard published his correspondence on the voting rights of Catholics.53 With Wharton, Crackenthorpe, William Marshall*, Wilfrid Lawson and Wybergh and his namesake of Greystoke, the Member for New Shoreham, Howard headed the declaration of support for Brougham’s next attempt, from which the names of Thanet and his connections were conspicuously absent.54 His sister Elizabeth informed Brougham’s wife that Thanet was ‘not likely to move again until he is obliged’.55 On 13 July 1826 The Times printed a resumé of Atkinson’s memorandum on the Blues’ defeat, which conceded their tardiness, lack of transport, attorneys and district committees, and the escalating problem of ‘mushroom’ voters; it also speculated on the enormous cost to the Lowthers.56 Atkinson’s ‘bold plans’ to match their exertions by appointing ‘headmen’ to conduct frequent covert canvasses and enfranchise ‘genuine’ freeholders’ sons were unaffordable, subscriptions, including Curwen’s, were refused, and the 1827 and 1828 Blue dinners were cancelled for lack of funds. They remained £6,883 in debt in April 1829.57

The farmers and wool producers petitioned for protection, 26 Feb. 1827, 12 May 1828, and the Dissenters and Nonconformists for repeal of the Test Acts, which the Members opposed, 31 May, 11, 17 June 1827, 22 Feb., 18, 21 Mar., 7 May 1828.58 Lord Lowther resigned from the treasury when the pro-Catholic Canning became premier in April 1827, and he was appointed chief commissioner of woods and forests by the duke of Wellington in May 1828. To the disappointment of Henry Barwis of Langrigg and the Kendal Blues, reports that Brougham would stand at the ensuing by-election were swiftly denied. Wybergh and the banker John Crosby of Kirkby Thorne put Crackenthorpe in nomination, but no poll was demanded and opposition to Lowther, who was much lampooned as a ‘wooden lord’, was confined to the mock chairing of ‘Jeremy Wiggins and his poodle dog’.59 As in 1827, and to a lesser extent in 1828, a strong anti-Catholic petitioning campaign was mounted early in 1829, when the Lowthers opposed the ministry’s decision to concede emancipation, but supported them on all other issues.60 The Unitarians and Roman Catholics of Kendal petitioned for Catholic relief, 19 Feb., 9 May 1828.61 The Commons received petitions for repeal of the 1827 Malt Act from Kendal’s maltsters, 17 Mar., and the town’s weavers petitioned for wage regulation to combat falling wages, 26 June 1828.62 Proposals for a Westmorland distress meeting in January 1830, to which Lord Lonsdale gave his approval, were abandoned directly the divisions of the Cumberland petitioners on the currency and reform became known, and action was confined to the establishment of a soup kitchen by subscription in Kendal.63 Both Houses received petitions for the abolition of capital punishment for forgery and non-violent crimes that session from the bankers, merchants, tradesmen and inhabitants of Kendal.64 The parties were financially exhausted when negotiations between Thanet and Lonsdale’s representatives resumed in June 1830 in anticipation of a dissolution following George IV’s death. These were initiated on Brougham’s behalf by James Brougham, one of the main beneficiaries of the resulting ‘Westmorland treaty’ of 9 July, which guaranteed the unopposed return of the sitting Members for Cumberland, Westmorland and Appleby and the resumption of one-and-one representation in Carlisle. In deference to Lonsdale, James Brougham was returned for the radical Lord Radnor’s borough of Downton and Radnor’s son Philip Pleydell Bouverie for Cockermouth.65 Jacob Wakefield welcomed the arrangement, pointing out that to embark on a Westmorland contest without £10-12,000 was ‘quite absurd’ and that the Blues had lost some of their best supporters, with little hope of replacement.66 Brougham, who divulged its details at Holland House despite being sworn to secrecy, was returned for Knaresborough and successfully contested Yorkshire. His likely candidature for Westmorland had already been advertised and rumours of a third man, or that Crosby and Richard Tinkler of Eden Grove would offer, persisted. A speech from the hustings by Wybergh, the only leading Blue present, ensured that the Lowthers, who conducted a precautionary canvass, were not opposed.67 Their agents also had Brougham questioned closely on the hustings at York about the reaction in Westmorland to the ‘treaty’. Many who conceded the folly of a contest objected to a pact made suddenly ‘without notice to his friends, and under a private arrangement with the enemy, and to the distinct and immediate benefit it conferred on James Brougham and its failure to extend one-and-one representation to Westmorland.68 Conscious of the damage, on 21 Aug. 1830 Atkinson urged his fellow Blues to rally to the Broughams, for ‘the world are in general laughing at us and ridiculing us after the loss we have sustained in our champion and cannot be persuaded but that we must feel galled by it’.69

Both Houses received anti-slavery petitions, 4 Nov. 1830-21 Apr. 1831, from Dissenters of all denominations, the inhabitants of Kendal and Kirkby Thorne, and the parishioners of Crosby Ravensworth, where Carus Wilson’s Evangelical son Edward was the vicar.70 The government’s defeat on the civil list, 15 Nov. 1830, and replacement by Lord Grey’s reform ministry, in which Henry Brougham was lord chancellor, plunged the Lowthers into outright opposition, and Lord Lowther, whom Lonsdale hoped to transfer to Cumberland, planned the redeployment of their nine seats in the event of an early dissolution.71 A new enclosure bill affecting the Kendal townships of Hughill, Applethwaite and Troutbeck was proposed (a casualty of the 1831 dissolution, it was enacted, 30 July 1831), and this and proprietorial changes affecting tithes and the moduses levied on wool, together with plans for a new church, caused uncertainty and encouraged petitioning in December 1830 and April 1831 for secure endowments and tithe limitation.72 Blue underrepresentation in the magistracy, the registry of deeds bill and reform became major political issues in the county that winter, and the subject of petitions left at the office of the Kendal attorney Thomas Richards for signature and forwarding to Parliament. The borough and townships of Kendal also petitioned afresh for the abolition of capital punishment for crimes against property and, galled by their 10 p.m. closing time, the town’s beerhouse keepers petitioned for the on-consumption privileges of licensed victuallers, 26 Feb. 1831.73 The Advertiser and the Kendal radicals who petitioned for reform, 19 Mar., pressed in vain for a county meeting to petition for the transfer of borough representation from Appleby (population 1,461) to Kendal (population 10,455).74 A ‘respectably signed’ Kendal petition received by the Commons, 23 Mar., endorsed the ministerial reform bill, which gave it one Member, disfranchised Appleby and left the county representation unchanged; the petitioners included tithe reform in their demands.75 Lord Lowther voted against the bill, 22 Mar., when Henry was ‘indisposed’, and Lonsdale was opposed ‘everywhere’ at the general election precipitated by its defeat, 19 Apr. 1831.

Lord Lowther, who was refused a requisition for Cumberland, declared for Westmorland with his brother, 27 Apr. Their notices deplored ‘sweeping’ reform, advocated ‘moderate’ change and regretted that the tithe limitation bill was a casualty of the dissolution.76 The Advertiser had ridiculed the credentials of the Lowthers as reformers and from 19 Mar. promoted the candidature of Crackenthorpe and suggested offering James Brougham, one of Wakefield’s sons or their kinsman by marriage John Cropper of Liverpool as the reformers’ second man.77 According to the Cumberland reformer William Blamire*, who met Crackenthorpe and the Wakefields at Kendal to discuss tactics

John Wakefield [the attorney of Sedgwick House], who by general consent would have been the best man, will not look at it; or rather his uncle [Jacob] will not allow him to do so. Crackenthorpe does not seem to incline to do so and the Wakefields seem to think he would not have any chance. Mr. Wybergh might I dare say be induced to stand, but I very much question the good policy of his doing so, because ... reformers failing ... would prove very injurious to the bill.78

A reform committee established on 29 Apr. with the land agent Edward Wakefield as chairman invited Crackenthorpe and Nowell, now a professed reformer, to stand and the Kendal Operatives’ Association resolved on the 30th to donate two days’ labour to bring them in. Lord Lowther’s switch back to Cumberland, 29 Apr., prompted offers from both sides to Wilson of Dallam Tower, who had also declared for reform, but he turned them down.79 Nowell had initially declined Wakefield’s offer and his decision to stand derived in part from pique at being overlooked by the Lowthers in favour of Carus Wilson, who was reported to be prepared to stand with ‘silent’ Henry Lowther and to make way for Lord Lowther in the event of his Cumberland defeat.80 On 3 May, after the first day’s canvass, the Wakefields and their attorney Thomas Heelis met the Wilsons of Dallam Tower and Abbott Hall and their attorney Daniel Harrison and negotiated a compromise whereby Crackenthorpe and Carus Wilson, neither of whom could fund a contest independently, would stand down, leaving Henry Lowther and Nowell unopposed. Their signed notices publicized the arrangement.81 Canvassing for Carus Wilson ceased, but Crackenthorpe, who received late requisitions from the London and Cumberland Blues, and could expect support from the ‘low’ Blues of Appleby and Kendal, was reputedly prepared to be put in nomination on the hustings despite his refused to canvass or ‘write letters’. James Brougham, who on 4 May alerted his brother to the ‘very extraordinary spirit afloat’, begrudged the miserly Crackenthorpe, who never contributed more than £200 to party funds, his chance and was also peeved when he declined to take it.82 The Wakefields’ outright refusal as Quakers to break promises and fears that Lord Lowther would appear at the nomination, 11 May, held the Blues in check, and speculation became frantic after Lowther conceded defeat to Blamire and the first lord of the admiralty Sir James Graham in Cumberland on the 9th.83 Nowell, who had gone to London on business, 2 May, was proposed before a crowd of 2,000 as an outright supporter of the reform bill by his locum John Wakefield, with Tinkler seconding. The barrister John Hill of Bankfoot and Atkinson of Temple Sowerby sponsored Henry Lowther. The undersheriff Thomas Briggs did not, as the Lowthers expected, rush through proceedings, and he allowed Crackenthorpe to talk at length in support of reform and to criticize Lord Lowther for failing to support it and voting against repeal of the Test Acts, Catholic relief and the abolition of slavery ‘contrary to his constituents’ wishes’. Henry Lowther’s spokesman Captain Francis Irving of Dublin, whom the reformers ridiculed as ‘a mushroom planted into the Lowther preserve at Great Strickland’, upheld his candidate’s ‘consistent’ conduct. Lord Lowther arrived to address the anti-reformers at the King’s Head after the chairing.84 Crackenthorpe maintained privately that his candidature would have provoked a contest, while Nowell, ‘if he acts up to his pledge ... will answer our purpose as well as any other’.85 The Wilsons stayed away, as did the Howards and the Blue gentry, who were appalled that the county was ‘compromised’.86 James Brougham also expressed ‘regret’ at the ‘horrible arrangement made by the Wakefields’, but conceded that ‘their situation was not easy with such a candidate as Crackenthorpe’ and details of the agreement of 3 May ‘in print’: a campaign on a par with that of 1826 was beyond the means of the Blues and any attempt on two seats ‘absurd’.87 Nowell, who tried to justify his conduct to Lonsdale in London on 9 May 1831, upheld the peer’s ‘right’ to a single seat and accepted that the Lowthers were not party to the Wilsons’ ‘disgraceful retreat’.88

No alterations affecting Westmorland were incorporated into the reintroduced reform bill, which the Members voted for and against as expected, thus confounding reports that the Lowthers would win back Nowell. He lobbied for stricter licensing regulation under the 1830 Beer Act, at the magistrates’ request, and for concessions for the Burma trade, in which he had a proprietorial interest.89 Lonsdale’s agents briefed the Tory opposition during their abortive campaign to undermine the bill on the pretext of saving one Appleby seat, and their Commons spokesman John Croker opposed the inclusion of Kendal in schedule D, 5 Aug., but waived his objections next day when it was clear that the inclusion of Kirkland raised the population to 11,577.90 Kendal’s petition to the Lords in support of the bill was left at Richardson’s for signature and presented, 3 Oct. 1831. They also forwarded a 2,300-signature address protesting at its rejection by the Lords, which had been adopted at a regularly convened borough meeting addressed by John and Edward Wakefield, 18 Oct. 1831, which also carried a resolution of support for Nowell.91 Edward Wakefield afterwards cautioned James Brougham against attempting a county meeting, although Nowell and Wilson of Dallam Tower were prepared to sign a requisition, ‘together with as many as you like here as tag, rag and bobtail’, for it would be difficult to ‘engineer’ different supporters.92 The Advertiser deemed the revised reform bill too conciliatory, but support for it in Kendal remained strong. Public meetings chaired by John Harrison petitioned for the withdrawal of supplies when the Lords threatened its passage in May 1832 and fêted its enactment in June.93 The landowners and occupiers had expressed their unease at new tithe arrangements in petitions to the both Houses, 13 July-19 Oct. 1831;94 and, as elsewhere in the North, there was widespread opposition to the registry of deeds bill, against which the county, 15 Feb., and Kendal petitioned, 2 June 1832.95 The Dissenters criticized the Lowther Members that month for failing to support the immediate appointment of a select committee on slavery.96

The boundary commissioners’ recommendations for a new Kendal constituency comprising the ‘old burgh’, the township of Kirkland and parts of the townships of Kendal and Nethergraveship were adhered to, and provision was made for the county to poll at Ambleside, Kendal, Kirkby Lonsdale, Kirkby Stephen, Shap and Appleby.97 Perceiving that Kendal’s enfranchisement deprived them of county votes and that there was no political advantage in saving Appleby, the Liberals made the Kendal seat their priority at the general election of 1832, and with the Wakefields’ assistance James Brougham saw off a pre-poll challenge by the Conservative Thompson to come in unopposed.98 Nowell’s absence in the East Indies and uncertainty about Lord Lowther’s candidature made the outcome in the county difficult to predict.99 Wilson of Dallam Tower refused to stand and the resident Blues, who favoured Crackenthorpe, had to settle for the 11th earl of Thanet’s nephew, the Liberal John Foster Barham*, who had ‘little personal influence’ and whom Crackenthorpe refused to nominate.100 The successes of Lonsdale’s agents when 4,392 voters were registered in October 1832 facilitated the candidature of both Lowther brothers, and the manner of their triumph over Foster Barham at the general election caused Graham, one of the architects of the Reform Act to remark: ‘Westmorland will henceforward be the scorn and derision of all free electors and a schedule A for counties will really appear requisite’.101 Conservatives held both seats unchallenged until 1880 and monopolized the representation until the constituency was divided under the 1884 Act, paving the way for a Liberal resurgence.102

Author: Margaret Escott


  • 1. Parl. Gazetteer of England and Wales (1844), iv. 482-6; A. White, ‘Fast Packet Boats to Kendal’, Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Arch. and Antiq. Soc. (ser. 3), vi (2006), 145; CJ, lxxvi. 46, 127, 135.
  • 2. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 405-8; W.A. Hay, ‘Henry Brougham and the 1818 Westmld. Election: A Study in Provincial Opinion and the Opening of Constituency Politics’, Albion, xxxvi (2004), 28-51.
  • 3. Letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth ed. M. Moorman and A.G. Hill (1970), ii. 536; A. Aspinall, Politics and the Press, 354-6.
  • 4. Wordsworth Letters, ii. 563-6; Lonsdale mss, election pprs. 1819-20; The Times, 26 Oct. 1819.
  • 5. Westmld. Gazette, 5 Feb.; Lonsdale mss, Hodgson to Lonsdale, 10, 18, 23, 28 Feb. 1820, Lowther to same, 10 Sept. 1827; Wordsworth Letters, ii. 579-84.
  • 6. Westmld. Gazette, 12 Feb.; Cumb. Pacquet, 15 Feb. 1820.
  • 7. Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to wife, 9 Feb.; NLI, Vesey Fitzgerald mss 7858, p. 168; Lonsdale mss, Long to Lonsdale, 24 Feb.; Westmld. Gazette, 26 Feb., 4, 11 Mar.; Cumb. Pacquet, 29 Feb., 7 Mar.; Whitehaven Gazette, 6 Mar. 1820.
  • 8. Brougham mss, Thanet to Brougham, 5 Feb.; Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to wife, 9 Feb. 1820; A. Aspinall, Lord Brougham and the Whig Party, 279.
  • 9. Cumbria RO (Kendal) WD/Cu/33; Brougham mss, J. Brougham to Brougham, 11 Feb. and undated, W. James to J. Brougham, 11 Feb., Atkinson to same, 25 Feb.; The Times, 21 Feb.; Cumb. Pacquet, 29 Feb. 1820.
  • 10. Brougham mss, Thanet to J. Brougham, 3 Mar. 1820.
  • 11. The Times, 8, 14 Mar.; Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to wife, 11 Mar.; Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 8, 9 Mar. 1820, election pprs. 1819-20.
  • 12. Castle Howard mss, Morpeth to wife, 13 Mar.; Westmld. Gazette, 18 Mar.; The Times, 20 Mar.; Whitehaven Gazette, 20 Mar. 1820.
  • 13. Add. 51562, Brougham to Holland [20 Mar.]; 51564, to Lady Holland [20 Mar.]; 51571, Thanet to Holland, 17, 18 Mar.; 52444, f. 99; The Times, 21, 22 Mar. 1820; W.A. Hay, The Whig Revival, 1808-1830, pp. 112, 113.
  • 14. Add. 51571, Thanet to Lady Holland [22 Mar.]; Westmld. Advertiser, 25 Mar.; The Times, 25, 27 Mar. 1820.
  • 15. PP (1831), xvi. 185.
  • 16. Westmld. Pollbooks (1818 and 1820); R.S. Ferguson, Cumb. and Westmld. MPs, 243; D.L. Stoker, ‘Elections and Voting Behaviour: A Study of Elections in Northumb. Durham, Cumb. and Westmld. 1760-1832’ (Manchester Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1980), 197. Totals for Lord Lowther and Brougham only.
  • 17. Lonsdale mss, Liverpool to Lonsdale, 28 Mar.; Add. 51562, Brougham to Holland [23 Mar.]; 51571, Thanet to same, 24 Mar.; NLS mss 5319, f. 195; Grey mss, Tierney to Grey, 22 Mar., 5 Apr., Grey to Brougham, 15 Apr.; Castle Howard mss, Brougham to Carlisle [Mar.]; Bessborough mss, Grey to Duncannon, 9 Apr. 1820.
  • 18. The Times, 31 Mar., 24 Apr. 1820.
  • 19. Stoker, 105, 267; Westmld. Advertiser, 5 Aug.; Westmld. Gazette, 12 Aug. 1820.
  • 20. Westmld. Gazette, 25 Mar., 1 Apr., 12 Aug.; Westmld. Advertiser, 1 Apr. 1820; Northumb. RO, Middleton mss ZM1/S76/29/13.
  • 21. Lonsdale mss, election pprs. 1819-20; Wordsworth Letters, ii. 590-2; Stoker, 43.
  • 22. Brougham mss, Atkinson to Lough, 28 Mar. 1820, Jacob Wakefield to H. Brougham, 19 Nov. 1821, Thanet to J. Brougham 17 Dec. 1822; Lonsdale mss, Lonsdale to Lowther, 14 Oct. 1823.
  • 23. CJ, lxxviii. 27, 130, 326; lxxix. 99, 109, 233; LJ, lv. 700, 706.
  • 24. LJ, liv. 353; lv. 244; lvii. 578, 618, 652; CJ, lxxx. 314, 337.
  • 25. Westmld. Gazette, 5 Feb. 1820; CJ, lxxv. 221.
  • 26. CJ, lxxvi. 103; lxxvii. 23; lxxix. 352; PP (1822), v. 65-67.
  • 27. CJ, lxxv. 122; lxxvi. 255, lxxviii. 326; lxxix. 19, 156, 253.
  • 28. Westmld. Gazette, 26 Aug., 16, 30 Sept. 1820.
  • 29. Ibid. 7 Oct., 18 Nov., 2 Dec.; Westmld. Advertiser, 18, 25 Nov. 1820.
  • 30. CJ, lxxvi. 67; LJ, liv. 54; Westmld. Advertiser, 24 Feb. 1821.
  • 31. Hay, Whig Revival, 126; CJ, lxxvii.178; LJ, lv. 146.
  • 32. CJ, lxxviii. 292; lxxix. 148, 253, 413, 422, 436; lxxxv. 367, 463. lxxxvi. 124; LJ, lvi. 76; lvii. 143; Westmld. Advertiser, 14, 21 Feb., 24 Apr. 1824.
  • 33. CJ, lxxix. 353; lxxx. 354; lxxxi. 96; LJ, lviii. 57; Westmld. Advertiser, 11 Feb. 1826.
  • 34. CJ, lxxviii. 84; lxxix. 172, 203; lxxx. 151, 220; LJ, lvii. 956.
  • 35. Cumbria RO (Kendal) WD/Cu/173.
  • 36. Westmld. Advertiser, 1 Jan.-19 Feb., 16 July; Carlisle Jnl. 22, 29 Jan.; Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 27 Jan. 7 Feb., 31 Mar., unknown to same, 7 Feb.; Brougham mss, Brougham to W. Brougham [1825]; Carlisle Public Lib. H.59, squibs and handbills.
  • 37. Lonsdale mss, Lord Lowther’s diaries, 2 July-18 Sept., Lowther to Lonsdale, 12 July, 24, 29 Sept., 18 Oct., Beckett to same, 15 Oct., Lonsdale to Lowther, 16, 19 Sept., 18 Oct.; Brougham mss, Lonsdale to Brougham, 10 July, Graham to same, 25 July, 22 Aug.; Lansdowne mss, Holland to Lansdowne, 27 July; Add. 51655, Mackintosh to Lady Holland, 6 Oct. 1825; Hay, Whig Revival,132, 133.
  • 38. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 14 Sept. 1825.
  • 39. Carlisle Jnl. 15 Apr.; The Times, 11 Apr., 2, 9, 16 May; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 20 Apr., Mrs. Taylor to Creevey, 2 June; Add. 51690, Lansdowne to Lady Holland, 18 Apr. 1826; Middleton mss S76/52/2, 7.
  • 40. Brougham mss, J. Brougham’s Westmld. notebooks and memos., J. Brougham to Atkinson, 4, 11 and n.d. Apr.; Cumbria RO (Kendal) WDX296/21; Add. 51659, Whishaw to Lady Holland, 14 May, 4 June 1826.
  • 41. Westmld. Advertiser, 6, 13, 20 May; The Times, 16 May, 17 June; Westmld. Gazette, 10 June 1826.
  • 42. The Times, 23 May, 1, 6, 15 June; Brougham mss, J. Brougham to Beckett, 16 May, Howard of Corby Castle to Brougham n.d., to J. Brougham, 12, 22, 26 June 1826; New Wordsworth Letters ed. A.G. Hill (1994), 233, 234; Cumbria RO (Kendal) WD/PD Acc 1640/2.
  • 43. Brougham mss, Jacob Wakefield to Atkinson, 2 June, J. Heelis jun. to same, 2, 7 June, Graham to Brougham, 13 June; Lonsdale mss, Beckett to Lonsdale, 3, 6 June, to Lowther, 7 June, Holmes to same, 13 June; NLS mss 24748, f. 1.
  • 44. Middleton mss S76/52/2; Lonsdale mss, T. Derby to Lonsdale, 5 June, Beckett to Lowther, 7 June and n.d.; boxes 1147, 1150 (letterbk. notices, instructions and canvass returns, Westmld. 1826); Castle Howard mss, R. Mounsey to Carlisle, 10 June; The Times, 23 June 1826.
  • 45. Add. 40387, f. 207.
  • 46. Westmld. Advertiser, 24 June 1826.
  • 47. Cumbria RO (Kendal) WDX/166/5; Lonsdale mss, Beckett to Lonsdale, 22, 25, 27 June, 1 July, Lowther to same, 29 July; The Times, 26, 27, 29, 30 June; Manchester Guardian, 1 July 1826; J. Duvergier, Lettres sur Les Elections Anglaises, 67-88, 108, 117; New Wordsworth Letters, 235, 236; Brougham mss, J. Brougham to Atkinson, n.d.
  • 48. NLS mss 24748, f. 3.
  • 49. Baring Jnls. 46, 48; New Wordsworth Letters, 234; Cumb. Pacquet, 20 June-11 July 1826.
  • 50. Add. 51659, Whishaw to Lady Holland, 9 Aug. 1826.
  • 51. Stoker, 192, 197, 199, 203, 204, 206, 267, 268.
  • 52. Westmld. Pollbooks (1820, 1826); Ferguson, 243; Stoker, 197. Totals for Lord Lowther and Brougham only.
  • 53. Cumbria RO (Carlisle), Musgrave mss D.MUS/A1/20, Nanson to Musgrave, 21 June; Lonsdale mss, Beckett to Lonsdale, 25 June; Brougham mss, Howard of Corby Castle to J. Brougham, 29 June-15 July; Westmld. Advertiser, 1 July; The Times, 1, 3, 4 July 1826; Longs of Jamaica ed. R.M. Howard, ii. 512, 513.
  • 54. Westmld. Advertiser, 8 July; The Times, 11 July 1826.
  • 55. Brougham mss, E. Tufton to M.A. Brougham, 5 July 1826.
  • 56. Ibid. Atkinson to J. Brougham and reply, 29 June 1826; Hay, Whig Revival, 135, 136.
  • 57. Brougham mss, J. Brougham to Atkinson, June, 9 July, and replies, 10, 28 July 1826, 17 Dec. 1828, 2 Apr. 1829, Curwen to J. Brougham, 8 Aug. 1826.
  • 58. CJ, lxxxii. 229, 540; lxxiii. 181, 328 ; LJ, lix. 372; lx. 64, 132, 427.
  • 59. Carlisle Jnl. 7, 14, 21 June; Cumbria RO (Kendal) WD/Cu/31; Brougham mss, J. Brougham to Atkinson, 18 June 1828.
  • 60. Westmld. Gazette, 7 Feb.-4 Apr. 1829; CJ, lxxxii. 379, 528; lxxxiv. 85, 103, 120; LJ, lix. 153, 189; lxi. 67, 117, 210.
  • 61. LJ, lx. 401; CJ, lxxxiii. 332; lxxxiv. 59.
  • 62. CJ, lxxxiii. 176, 479.
  • 63. Grey mss, Ellice to Grey, 18 Jan.; Westmld. Gazette, 23, 30 Jan., 20 Feb. 1830.
  • 64. CJ, lxxxv. 367, 463; LJ, lxii. 721, 759.
  • 65. Lonsdale mss, bdles. on 1830 election; Wilts RO, Radnor mss 490/1374, Boucher to Radnor, 6 July, 2 Aug., Pleydell Bouverie to same, 10 July, Radnor diary, 9 July; Chatsworth mss, Brougham to Devonshire, 12 July 1830.
  • 66. Brougham mss, Wakefield to J. Brougham, 12 July 1830.
  • 67. The Times, 10 July; Cumb. Pacquet, 13 July; Carlisle Jnl. 17, 24 July; Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 19 July; Westmld. Gazette, 7 Aug.; Westmld. Advertiser, 10, 17 July, 7 Aug. 1830; Wordsworth Letters, v (ii), 303, 314.
  • 68. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 30, 31 July; Manchester Guardian, 31 July, 7 Aug.; Brougham mss, Graham to Brougham, 16, 17 Aug. 1830.
  • 69. Brougham mss, Atkinson to J. Brougham, 21 Aug. 1830.
  • 70. CJ, lxxxvi. 35, 143, 454-5; LJ, lxiii. 69, 452 503, 505.
  • 71. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 22 Nov. 1830-24 Jan. 1831.
  • 72. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 15 Dec. 1830; CJ, lxxxvi. 169, 204, 294, 413, 489, 508; LJ, lxiii. 881.
  • 73. Westmld. Advertiser, 1, 15 Jan., 5 Mar.; Westmld. Gazette, 22 Jan., 5 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 311, 393, 397, 470; LJ, lxii. 325.
  • 74. Westmld. Advertiser, 29 Jan., 5 Feb. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 397, 405; PP (1831), xvi. 246; (1831-2), xxxvi. 190.
  • 75. Westmld. Advertiser, 12 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 423.
  • 76. Westmld. Advertiser, 30 Apr.; Westmld. Gazette, 30 Apr. 1831.
  • 77. Westmld. Gazette, 19 Mar.; Westmld. Advertiser, 19 Mar., 2 Apr., 23 Apr. 1831.
  • 78. Brougham mss, Blamire to J. Brougham [Apr. 1831].
  • 79. Lonsdale mss, Lonsdale to Lowther, 28, 29 Apr.; Brougham mss, E. Wakefield to Brougham, 30 Apr.; Sir James Graham mss (IHR microfilm XR 80), 25, ‘Cumb. Election of 1831’, Graham to Blamire, 1 May 1831.
  • 80. Brougham mss, Nowell to John Wakefield, 1 May 1831.
  • 81. Westmld. Advertiser, 7 May; Westmld. Gazette, 7 May; Manchester Guardian, 7 May; The Times, 10 May 1831.
  • 82. Brougham mss, J. Brougham to Brougham, 4 May; Add. 76371, Brougham to Althorp [11 May] 1831.
  • 83. Northumb. RO, Hope Wallace mss Z/HW/2/12, 14; Wordsworth Letters, v (ii), 384.
  • 84. The Times, 14 May; Westmld. Advertiser, 14, 21 May; Westmld. Gazette, 14 May 1831.
  • 85. Brougham mss, Crackenthorpe to Atkinson, 15, 30 May 1831.
  • 86. Hants RO, Carnarvon mss 75M91/L3, Howard of Greystoke to Lady Porchester, 4 May; Sir James Graham mss, Graham to Grey, 5 May; Cumbria RO (Carlisle), Howard (Greystoke) mss D/HW/48/16, Howard to mother, 11 May 1831.
  • 87. Brougham mss, J. Brougham to Atkinson, 12 May 1831.
  • 88. Lonsdale mss, Lonsdale to Lowther, 10 May; Brougham mss, Nowell to Brougham, 14 May 1831.
  • 89. Brougham mss, Nowell to Brougham, 14 May; Westmld. Advertiser, 16 July 1831.
  • 90. M. Brock, Great Reform Act, 214, 220; CJ, lxxxvi, 731, 733; Westmld. Advertiser, 30 Aug. 1831.
  • 91. Westmld. Advertiser, 24 Sept.; 22 Oct.; Westmld. Gazette, 15, 22 Oct. 1831; LJ, lxiii. 1035.
  • 92. Brougham mss, E. Wakefield to J. Brougham, 19, 24 Oct. 1831.
  • 93. Westmld. Advertiser, 17 Dec. 1831, 12, 19 May, 23, 30 June 1832; CJ, lxxxvii. 337.
  • 94. CJ, lxxxvi. 654, 714, 731, 932; LJ, lxiii. 561, 784.
  • 95. CJ, lxxxvii. 107, 446.
  • 96. Westmld. Advertiser, 2, June 1832.
  • 97. PP (1831-2), xl. 81, 87; (1835), xv. 181.
  • 98. Brougham mss, Crackenthorpe to Atkinson, 15 May, John Wakefield to J. Brougham, 27 July 1831, J. Heelis jun. to same 25, 26 May, E. Wakefield to same, 5 June, 12 July, J. Brougham to Atkinson, 11-31 Dec. 1832.
  • 99. Ibid. E. Wakefield to J. Brougham, 5, 11 June; Sir James Graham mss, Graham to Ellice, 21 Aug. 1832.
  • 100. Brougham mss, letters to J. Brougham from John Wakefield 7 June, E. Wakefield, 12 July, Jacob Wakefield, 14 July, Crackenthorpe, 21 July, 11 Aug., 1 Dec., J. Heelis sen. 4 Aug. 1832.
  • 101. Lonsdale mss, bdles. for 1832 election; Wordsworth Letters, v (ii), 472-9; PP (1833), xxvii. 99; Brougham mss, J. Brougham-Atkinson corresp. June-Dec., J. Heelis jun. to J. Brougham, 6, 18 Oct., 3 Dec., E. Wakefield to same, 2 Nov. 1832, 1 Jan. 1833, Graham to same, 18 Dec., Thanet to same [Dec.] 1832.
  • 102. A.N. Connell, ‘Appleby’s Liberal Decade’, Trans. Cumb. and Westmld. Arch. and Antiq. Soc. (ser. 3), vi (2006), 195-215.