DUNDAS, Charles (1751-1832), of Barton Court, Kintbury, Berks.; Aston Hall, Hawarden, Flints., and Manor House, Pimlico, Mdx.

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



6 Jan. 1775 - 1780
23 Feb. 1781 - 1784
1784 - 31 Jan. 1786
16 Sept. 1794 - 16 May 1832

Family and Education

b. 5 Aug. 1751, 2nd s. of Thomas Dundas† (d. 1786) of Fingask, Stirling and 2nd w. Lady Janet Maitland, da. of Charles, 6th earl of Lauderdale [S]. educ. Edinburgh h.s.; Edinburgh Univ. 1768; Trinity Coll. Camb. 1769; M. Temple 1774, called 1777. m. (1) 16 Feb. 1782, Anne (d. 29 Nov. 1812), d. and h. of Ralph Whitley of Kintbury and Aston Hall, 1da.; (2) 25 Jan. 1822, his cos. Margaret, da. of Hon. Charles Barclay Maitland, wid. of Charles Ogilvy of Inchmartin, Perth and of Maj. Archibald Erskine of Venlaw, Peebles, s.p. cr. Bar. Amesbury 16 May 1832. d. 30 June 1832.

Offices Held

Counsellor to prince of Wales as gt. steward of Scotland 1785-1820.

Col. White Horse (Berks.) vol. cav. 1797, lt.-col. commdt. 1799, capt. commdt. 1803, lt.-col. commdt. 1804.


By 1820 Dundas, a veteran Whig, who had first entered Parliament in the days of Lord North, had established an unassailable position in Berkshire, where his first marriage had brought him estates in the area of Newbury and Hungerford.1 While his long parliamentary experience made him one of the most respected backbenchers in the House, and he had a very good record as a promoter of private and local legislation, he remained what he had always been, a political lightweight. In this period his attendance, which had never been particularly assiduous, was disrupted by the increasing frailty of his health.

He was visiting his Flintshire property when Parliament was dissolved in 1820, but, at the age of 68, he confirmed his intention of standing for Berkshire for the eighth successive time. He boasted of his 26 years service, during which he had supported

every justifiable retrenchment and practicable reform; I say practicable reform, as I am completely convinced that annual parliaments and universal suffrage, if carried into effect, would soon lead to the subversion of all government, and the destruction of property.

He was the prime target of the radical reformer William Hallett, who, repeating the opposition which he had offered at the two previous general elections, charged Dundas with persistent neglect of his parliamentary duties, and specifically attacked him for failing to attend the county meeting to protest against the Peterloo massacre or to oppose the repressive legislation which had followed it. He also accused Dundas, whom he denounced as a Scottish interloper, of having in 1816 sought to feather his own nest by trying to bring in a bill to increase tonnage duties on goods carried on the Kennet and Avon canal, of which he had been the principal promoter. On the other hand, one of the leading Berkshire agriculturists praised Dundas as a reliable champion of the landed interest, a title which he claimed for himself at the nomination. He stressed the benefits which the canal had brought to the Newbury area, and defended his conduct on the Six Acts by explaining that after voting for inquiry into Peterloo, and being ‘convinced that some restrictive measures were necessary, he certainly did not vote against the bills’; and that as he had been ‘unwilling to support measures infringing the liberty of the subject, he did not vote for passing them, but voted for limiting their duration’. He and his Grenvillite Whig colleague Neville were irritated and inconvenienced, but not remotely threatened by Hallett’s vexatious insistence on keeping the poll open for the full 15 days.2

Dundas voted against government on the civil list, probably on 3 May, and certainly on 5 and 8 May 1820. He introduced the Western Union canal bill, to create a link between Maidenhead and the Grand Union canal, 2 May. It passed its second reading by 169-136, 15 May, but foundered later in the session.3 He was named to the select committees on highways, 16 May, and agricultural distress, 31 May, when he said that ‘if he did not consider the interests of the agriculturist and the interests of the manufacturer were inseparable, he would not consent’ to serve on it. He voted against the barrack agreement bill, 17 July 1820. He pleaded illness as his excuse for not attending the Berkshire meeting in support of Queen Caroline, 8 Jan. 1821, but he subscribed to the view that her prosecution had been ‘impolitic and unconstitutional’.4 He voted for restoration of her name to the liturgy, 23, 26 Jan., when he presented the Berkshire petition, endorsing its prayer that the ‘undivided attention’ of ministers should be directed to ‘relief of the unprecedented distress of the country’ rather than focused on their ‘most unjust proceeding’ against the queen, which had ‘alarmed every friend of justice and truth and humanity’. He presented similar petitions from Newbury, 26 Jan., and Kintbury, 13 Feb., when he said that concession on the liturgy (for which he again voted that day) would ‘restore peace to the country and congregations to the deserted churches’;5 but he was absent from the division on the opposition censure motion, 6 Feb. He voted with opposition to condemn the Allies’ suppression of liberalism in Naples, 21 Feb. He voted, as usual, for Catholic relief, 28 Feb. He presented several Berkshire petitions for relief from agricultural distress, 28 Feb., 6 Mar.6 He voted for Leeds being given a scot and lot franchise if it acquired Grampound’s seats, 2 Mar. He was in the opposition majority for repeal of the additional malt duty, 21 Mar., but could only pair in its favour for the division of 3 Apr., ‘having been subpoenaed as a witness at Taunton assizes’.7 His only other known vote that session was in the minority of 19 for inquiry into the leases of the Llanlechyd slate quarries, 21 June. On 11 May he introduced a bill to amend the provisions of an Act of 1782 in order to empower parochial officers to sell workhouses and poorhouses and their associated lands. He was granted a month’s leave to attend to urgent private business, 17 May, but may have been present on various occasions to steer the bill through the Commons, and definitely moved its third reading, 15 June. It received royal assent on 23 June (1 & 2 Geo. IV, c. 56).8 He was credited, perhaps erroneously, with saying a word in defence of the lord advocate against the charge that he had encouraged petitions against the Scottish juries bill, 18 May 1821.9

Dundas voted for more extensive tax reductions to relieve distress, 11 Feb., and in support of Sir Robert Wilson’s* protest against his dismissal from the army, 13 Feb. 1822; but his next recorded vote was not until 25 Apr., when he divided for Lord John Russell’s parliamentary reform motion. He presented Berkshire agricultural distress petitions, 29 Apr., 12 June,10 and was one of the minority of 24 who voted for a 40s. fixed import duty on corn, 8 May, and of 30 who supported Western’s protest against the resumption of cash payments, 12 June. He paired for abolition of one of the joint-postmasterships, 2 May, and voted for payment of naval and military pensions from the sinking fund, 3 May. He defended the conduct of Maidenhead magistrates over public house licensing, 14 May,11 and was in the majority for Bennet’s licensing bill, 27 June. He voted for cuts in diplomatic expenditure, 15 May, and repeal of the salt duties, 28 June. He supported a petition against renewal of the Bank of England’s charter, remarking on the losses sustained by recent failures of country banks in Berkshire, 31 May 1822. In October, on his home ground at Newbury, he was attacked by William Cobbett†, who repudiated his earlier ‘base accusation’ that he had been connected with Thistlewood, the Cato Street conspirator.12

At the Berkshire reform meeting, 27 Jan. 1823, Dundas, promising to present and support its petition, observed that reform would have ‘curtailed a ruinous war, and prevented that ruinous system of extravagant loans to support an exorbitantly extravagant expenditure’. He duly presented the petition, 27 Feb.13 He voted against the appointment of a lieutenant-general of the ordnance in peacetime, 19 Feb., and for reform, 20 Feb., 24 Apr., tax reductions, 28 Feb., 10, 17, 18 Mar., and inquiry into the prosecution of the Dublin Orange rioters, 22 Apr. He presented a Hungerford petition complaining of the high price of beer, 10 Mar. 1823.14 The next known trace of his parliamentary activity is his presentation of a Newbury publicans’ petition against excise licences, 9 Mar. 1824.15 He presented petitions from Reading, 14 May, and Newbury, 17 May, against the beer retail bill.16 His only recorded vote in the 1824 session was in condemnation of the prosecution of the Methodist missionary John Smith in Demerara, 11 June. He only paired for Catholic relief, 1 Mar., 21 Apr. 1825. He presented petitions from the agriculturists of Newbury, 28 Apr., and Roxburgh, 19 May, against alteration of the corn laws.17 That session he promoted the Newbury improvement bill, which survived opposition to its third reading from the Members for Reading, 5 May, and reached the statute book on 20 May.18 He spoke in support of the Berkshire and Hampshire canal bill, 31 May, 10 June, when he was a teller for the majority for his motion to allow the committee more time to make its report. He brought up the report, which recommended the suspension of proceedings on the bill for that session, 20 June.19 He voted against the duke of Cumberland’s annuity bill, 6, 10 June 1825. He presented two Newbury petitions against the importation of French silk, 9 Feb., and voted for inquiry into distress in the trade, 24 Feb. 1826. He brought in a new Berkshire and Hampshire canal bill, which proposed to link the Kennet and Avon and Basingstoke canals, 9 Feb., but it ran into fierce local opposition, and was thrown out by 48-38, 6 Apr. The following day he presented a Maidenhead petition in support of the bill to amend the laws regulating debtors and creditors.20 He voted for parliamentary reform, 27 Apr., and against the government’s plan for the emergency admission of foreign corn, 8 May 1826.

In his address to the county at the general election of 1826, Dundas claimed to have been talked out of retiring by his friends. There was no opposition to his re-election. On the hustings, where he assured the freeholders that ‘to be an honest Member of Parliament was no sinecure’, for ‘the duties of that situation were arduous, and he who discharged them well slept not on a bed of roses’, he made much of his support for agricultural protection and condemned ‘the present mania of free trade’. When pressed for his views on slavery, he replied that he was ‘anxious’ to see it abolished, but prepared to leave it to government to ‘take the necessary measures for accomplishing so desirable a purpose, without precipitation or violence’.21 He presented Berkshire petitions for agricultural protection, 27 Feb.,22 and voted against the corn bill, 2 Apr. 1827. He divided for Catholic relief, 6 Mar. On 19 Mar. he presented the petition of the independent (and Tory) electors of Wallingford for investigation of the notorious and systematic bribery carried on there by the Whig sitting Member William Hughes; there was too much noise in the House for his personal observations on the matter to be heard by The Times reporter.23 He was given a week’s leave to deal with ‘urgent business’, 5 Apr. He supported the Canning ministry, from whom he tried to obtain a peerage, asking Lords Holland and Lansdowne, the leading Whig member of the government, to promote his claims. While Holland advised Dundas that, contrary to his belief, Lansdowne had no immediate plans to press for individual Whig creations, and warned him that ministers were ‘generally averse to any unnecessary grant of such favours’, he told Lansdowne that

without any personal acquaintance with him I know him to be one of the most respectable Members of Parliament as well as one of the oldest and steadiest supporters of the principles professed by the party which has lately joined the government. In short, if there were such a list as he supposed or if there should be in a short time his name would be no discredit to it and his personal and political pretensions to such a favour from any government which derives support from the Whig party are by no means unreasonable, but would if complied with give very general satisfaction to those connected with you.

Lansdowne, confirming to Holland that no promotions were in the offing, but acknowledging that Dundas was ‘one of ... [the] oldest and most respectable Members’ of the House, was unwilling to ‘make him any sort of promise, except that if he wishes it at any time I will state his wishes and claims to Mr. Canning’.24 Dundas presented a petition from certain East Retford electors praying to be heard by counsel against the disfranchisement bill, 6 June, and referred to it as an obstacle to proceeding with the second reading, 22 June 1827. Later in the year he urged Lansdowne to press his claims for a peerage on Lord Goderich. Landsdowne told the premier:

Though I am perfectly aware they cannot be attended to at present, you will perhaps think with me that they are not so unreasonable as many that have pressed, [he] having been for so many years one of the most active and intelligent of the county Members in all general as well as local business; at least, so I have always understood, for my acquaintance with him, though of old standing, has been but slight. As you will have to answer his letter may I beg of you to say for me that I have not failed in stating though I could not encourage his pretensions. I should hope a refusal for the present, if accompanied with civil expressions, will not affect his parliamentary conduct.25

Dundas was a virtual cypher in Parliament during the life of the Wellington administration. He presented petitions from Protestant Dissenters of Newbury and Wallingford for repeal of the Test Acts, 19 Feb., and voted for that measure, 26 Feb. 1828. He presented a petition from the Catholics of East Hendred in support of their claims, 30 Apr., and divided for relief, 12 May. He brought up petitions from Wallingford against the alehouses licensing bill, 9 May, and from Newbury for the abolition of slavery, 19 June 1828. He presented Catholic petitions for emancipation from Donnington and Beenham, 11 Mar., and voted for the government’s plan, 6, 30 Mar. 1829. Called on by Littleton to give his view, as an old hand, on the question of whether private bill committees could examine evidence to ascertain if a better line could be found for a road or canal than that originally proposed, he was inclined to think not, but referred the problem to the Speaker. As chairman of the Berkshire bench, he signed their memorial to Wellington of 13 Jan. 1830 which called on ministers to adopt ‘effective measures’ to deal with the ‘almost unprecedented state of distress’ arising from agricultural unemployment.26 He presented and endorsed the petition of Berkshire agriculturists calling for tax reductions, 18 Feb. On 12 Mar. he moved the second reading of the Avon and Gloucestershire railway bill, which he had introduced on the 4th, and, in response to objections from spokesmen for the Bristol and Gloucestershire Railway Company, argued that the Kennet and Avon Canal Company were entitled to extend their lines of communication through this measure, which was intended to facilitate the cheaper transport of coals to Bristol. He was a teller for the minority in the division.27 Later that day he presented four Berkshire petitions for repeal of the beer and malt taxes. Almost immediately afterwards illness rendered him ‘altogether unable to attend to business’: no other vote has been found in his name for the whole of the 1830 session. He was given a month’s sick leave, 29 Mar.28

By the time of the general election in the summer Dundas had recovered sufficiently to be able to scotch the strong rumours that he intended to retire; and, a month short of his 79th birthday, he offered again.29 At the county meeting to vote condolences and congratulations to William IV, 24 July 1830, he welcomed the government’s recent promise to achieve a ‘prudent and economical administration of the supplies’ and ‘every diminution of the public charges which can be effected consistently with the dignity of the crown, the maintenance of national faith and the permanent interests of the country’. Pressed to respond to the great distress among the labouring classes, he promised to present petitions for relief and to support all remedial measures.30 When inviting the young Catholic, Robert Throckmorton*, to second his nomination, Dundas observed that ‘you know my wish that every person of every opinion should possess those rights, which form by their union the strength of the empire’. On the hustings, he claimed to have supported the ‘gradual abolition’ of slavery, ‘so as to secure the well-being of the slave, and the just indemnity of the owner of that species of property’. He advocated such an alteration in the corn laws as would ‘secure the home grower from excessive foreign importation, when the crops were scanty’, though he ‘also wished the country gentlemen to rally round the principle of a reduction in the public burdens’. He boasted of his long-standing support for parliamentary reform, but said that he ‘would not pull down the old fabric of the constitution by adopting such measures as universal suffrage’: he preferred ‘gradual and wise reform’ on the model proposed by Russell, particularly a transfer of the franchise from ‘corrupt boroughs to places of population and trade’. He called for a careful opening of the Indian tea trade so as not to threaten the security of the East India Company’s territorial possessions. Noticing some anonymous public criticism of his record as a county Member, he denied charges of neglect and rejected the slur that he shared in the ‘obtuseness of the intellect of country gentlemen’, pointing out that he had twice been offered nomination for the Speakership. Under questioning, he said that only his illness - ‘an intermittent fever’ - had prevented him from attending to support the recent motions for parliamentary reform and the abolition of slavery; promised to ‘support retrenchment in the civil list which was consistent with the security of the state’, and said that he would turn his mind to the problem of reducing the additional burden imposed on the local poor rates by the need to provide for transient Irish paupers. There was no opposition to the return of Dundas and his Tory colleague Robert Palmer.31

Dundas, whom ministers of course listed among their ‘foes’, was apparently restored to reasonable health, and he was present to help to vote them out of office on the civil list, 15 Nov. 1830. He presented petitions for the abolition of slavery, 12, 19 Nov. On the 22nd he was granted a fortnight’s leave on account of the disturbed state of his neighbourhood, which was badly affected by ‘Swing’ riots; and he sat on the special commission which dealt with Berkshire offenders at the turn of the year. At that time he pressed his claim for a peerage on the king and the Grey ministry. Acknowledging his application, Lord Melbourne, the home secretary, offered ‘my full and unequivocal testimony to the uprightness, integrity and usefulness of your parliamentary conduct’. At the county reform meeting, 17 Jan. 1831, Dundas spoke only briefly, referring to his support for reform since 1780 and promising to present and endorse the petition, which called for ‘rational, practical and efficient reform’; but when a radical carped at his silence in the House and suggested that he was only a lukewarm reformer, he retorted that he had signified his support for reform by backing petitions, admitted that he ‘certainly was not’ a ‘radical reformer’ and claimed to have an open mind on the ballot issue.32 He approved the petition when Palmer presented it, 8 Feb., asserting that both the government and the country were ‘strenuously inclined’ to ‘practicable reform’. He presented a petition from Berkshire agriculturists for repeal of the malt tax, 2 Mar., and petitions from Hungerford in favour of the ballot and from Haddington in support of the ministerial reform bill, 16 Mar. He did not attend that day’s county meeting at Abingdon to endorse the measure, pleading a recent ‘most severe cold’ as his excuse; but he signified his intention of supporting the bill.33 This he duly did on its second reading, 22 Mar., after presenting the county petition, along with one from Newbury; and he voted against Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr. His bill to empower the Kennet and Avon Canal Company to reduce the size of its locks was given a second reading, 28 Mar., but was overtaken by the dissolution.34 He presented Berkshire petitions for repeal of the Sale of Beer Act, 18 Apr. 1831.

Dundas was returned unopposed with Throckmorton at the ensuing general election, when Palmer, deferring to the strength of opinion in favour of the reform bill, gave up at a late stage. At the nomination, Dundas, claiming to be ‘the oldest reformer in England’, pledged his unequivocal support for the bill, ‘a measure for the restoration of the constitution’. His reiteration, under questioning, of his support for the abolition of slavery, provided that the owners were fairly compensated, was deemed unsatisfactory by at least one of his audience. At the formal election proceedings he ignored this subject, preferring to extol the virtues of the reform bill. Stung, presumably, by the continued criticism of his general silence in the House, he ‘hoped there would be a reform in the debates’, for the Commons ‘had done nothing lately but talk, talk, talk’. At subsequent celebration dinners in Newbury and Hungerford, he said that the essentially ‘moderate’ bill would ‘restore to the people all the great principles of the constitution’ and thereby ‘lower the expenses of government, reduce taxation and revive the prosperity of the country’: ‘If to do away with undue influence; if to substitute representation for nomination; if to enlarge and restore the elective franchise may be called revolutionary, this the bill will completely do’.35 Dundas, the father of the House, reintroduced the Kennet Navigation bill, which became law on 6 Sept. 1831.36 He presented a petition from the inhabitants of Newbury seeking restoration of the borough’s ‘ancient right’ of returning Members, 1 July 1831. He voted for the second reading of the reintroduced reform bill, 6 July, and against the adjournment, 12 July, and was a steady supporter of its details, though he paired for at least the divisions on Dorchester, 28 July, and clause 15, 17 Aug. On 29 July he repudiated Wetherell’s allegation that a sitting on the next day, a Saturday, would interfere with election committees. He voted twice with ministers on the Dublin election controversy, 23 Aug. He voted for the third reading and passage of the reform bill, 19, 21 Sept. His wife’s illness prevented him from attending the county meeting to petition the Lords in support of the bill, 5 Oct.;37 but in the House, 10 Oct. 1831, he seconded Lord Ebrington’s motion of confidence in the ministry, expressing his ‘undiminished attachment to the great cause of reform’.

He might have had a coronation peerage in September 1831, but the cabinet decided to postpone it, fearing that Berkshire ‘would not be safe’ for a reformer. It was taken for granted that the king would have no objection to his elevation, which was ‘in a manner promised’; and in January 1832 William IV confirmed that Dundas’s was one of only three fresh creations to which he would agree, insisting that if peers had to be made to carry the reform bill, they must be taken from the ranks of the eldest sons and collateral relatives of existing noblemen.38 Dundas presented pro-reform petitions from Richmond, 14 Dec., and Newbury, 16 Dec. 1831, but he only paired for the second reading of the revised reform bill on the 17th. He did not attend the committee proceedings on the bill in the new year, and in early February was hunting in Berkshire. He told Throckmorton that he had ‘suffered so severely from rheumatism’ as a result of his ‘attendance on the last reform committee’ that he was not prepared to risk another dose, though he professed himself ‘ready to attend at a day’s notice’ if required. When his absence was remarked on in the local press, he wrote a public letter of explanation, trusting that after almost 60 years of parliamentary service his constituents would ‘forgive my unavoidable absence from the committee, where I was not wanted’.39 He went up to present Hungerford and Newbury petitions for repeal of the malt tax and to vote for the third reading of the reform bill, 22 Mar. 1832.

The king gave effect to his peerage on the resignation of Grey in the crisis of May 1832.40 Taking his leave of the county, which the reformers failed to hold at the by-election, he expressed his intention of continuing to support reform in the Lords.41 He did so in the committee divisions of 22-24 May, but he died at the end of June 1832, less than seven weeks after his elevation. It was widely supposed that he was a victim of the cholera, but the home office under-secretary denied this when questioned in the House, 4 July 1832. Dundas’s peerage became extinct, while his Berkshire and Flintshire estates passed, by a settlement of 1815, confirmed in his will of 21 Nov. 1829, to his nephew and son-in-law, Captain James Whitley Deans Dundas (1785-1862), the husband of his only child Janet, who sat as a Liberal for Greenwich, 1832-5, and 1841-52, and for Devizes, 1836-8. Dundas’s personalty was sworn under £18,000.42

Ref Volumes: 1820-1832

Author: David R. Fisher


  • 1. VCH Berks. iv. 207.
  • 2. Reading Mercury, 14, 21, 28 Feb., 6, 13, 20, 27 Mar.; The Times, 9 Mar. 1820.
  • 3. CJ, lxxv. 112, 121, 128, 213, 299.
  • 4. The Times, 9 Jan. 1821.
  • 5. Ibid. 27 Jan.; Reading Mercury, 12 Feb. 1821.
  • 6. The Times, 1, 7 Mar. 1821.
  • 7. Reading Mercury, 9 Apr. 1821.
  • 8. The Times, 9, 12 May, 16 June 1821.
  • 9. Ibid. 19 May 1821.
  • 10. Ibid. 30 Apr., 13 June 1822.
  • 11. Ibid. 15 May 1822.
  • 12. Cobbett’s Rural Rides ed. G.D.H. and M. Cole, i. 109, 113.
  • 13. The Times, 28 Jan., 28 Feb.; Reading Mercury, 3 Feb. 1823.
  • 14. The Times, 11 Mar. 1823.
  • 15. Ibid. 10 Mar. 1824.
  • 16. Ibid. 15, 18 May 1824.
  • 17. Ibid. 29 Apr., 20 May 1825.
  • 18. Ibid. 6 May 1825; CJ, lxxx. 34, 114, 155, 191, 347, 378-9, 419, 441.
  • 19. The Times, 1, 11, 21 June 1825.
  • 20. CJ, lxxxi. 12, 16, 25, 85, 118, 215; The Times, 7, 8 Apr. 1826.
  • 21. The Times, 21 June; Berks. Chron. 24 June; Reading Mercury, 26 June 1826.
  • 22. The Times, 28 Feb. 1827.
  • 23. Ibid. 20 Mar. 1827.
  • 24. Add. 51687, Holland to Lansdowne, 24 May, reply 31 May; 51833, Dundas to Holland, 29 May 1827; Canning’s Ministry, 318; Three Diaries, 178.
  • 25. Bucks. RO, Buckinghamshire mss O.22, Lansdowne to Goderich [Nov. 1827].
  • 26. Reading Mercury, 18 Jan., 1 Feb. 1830.
  • 27. CJ, lxxxv. 59, 87, 130, 171.
  • 28. Berks. Chron. 19 Mar., 3 Apr., 1 May 1830.
  • 29. Reading Mercury, 7, 14, 21 June, 5 July; Berks. Chron. 12, 19 June, 10 July 1830.
  • 30. Reading Mercury, 26 July; Berks. Chron. 31 July 1830.
  • 31. Warws. RO, Throckmorton mss CR 1998/Tribune/folder 11/3; Reading Mercury, 9 Aug.; The Times, 9 Aug. 1830.
  • 32. Berks. Chron. 22 Jan.; Reading Mercury, 24 Jan. 1831.
  • 33. The Times, 17 Mar. 1831.
  • 34. CJ, lxxxvi. 207, 215, 385, 441, 471, 481, 496.
  • 35. Reading Mercury, 25 Apr., 2, 9, 16, 30 May, 6 June 1831.
  • 36. CJ, lxxxvi. 527, 543, 554, 579, 630, 663,677, 778, 826.
  • 37. The Times, 6 Oct. 1831.
  • 38. Holland House Diaries, 47, 98, 110; Grey-William IV Corresp. ii. 71, 76, 113, 133, 333; Three Diaries, 178, 253; Add. 76369, Althorp to Brougham, 7 Jan. 1832.
  • 39. Throckmorton mss folder 11/6; folder 16/57; Add. 28670, f. 164; Berks. Chron. 3 Mar. 1832.
  • 40. Grey-William IV Corresp. ii. 397, 399.
  • 41. Add. 28670, f. 166; Reading Mercury, 21 May 1832.
  • 42. PROB 11/1807/670; IR26/1281/826; Add. 28670, f. 168.