Cardiff Boroughs


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

Background Information

Right of Election:

in the freemen of Cardiff, Swansea, Llantrisant, Kenfig, Aberavon, Neath, Cowbridge and Loughor1

Estimated number qualified to vote:

850 in 1820 (Cardiff 150; Swansea 100; Llantrisant 180; Kenfig 180; Aberavon 85; Neath 65; Cowbridge 50; Loughor 40)2

Number of voters:

702 in 18203


(1821): Cardiff 3,521; Swansea 10,005; Llantrisant 2,585; Kenfig 222;Aberavon 365; Neath 2,832; Cowbridge 1,107; Loughor 427; (1831): Cardiff 6,187; Swansea 13,256; Llantrisant 2,789; Kenfig 276; Aberavon 573; Neath 4,023; Cowbridge 1,097; Loughor 665


15 Mar. 1820WYNDHAM LEWIS457
 Ebenezer Ludlow245

Main Article

Cardiff (Caerdydd), the county town of Glamorgan, was situated in the south- east of the county near the Monmouthshire border. It was the polling town and its annually elected bailiffs were the returning officers for Glamorgan’s second seat, an ill-defined constituency of eight boroughs, where no uniform franchise qualification applied and the residence required of electors had not been fully determined. The size of the electorate in the boroughs varied inversely according to their population and economic importance. This was the outcome of on-going dynastic rivalries and the differing strategies on freeman admissions deployed by individual borough lords to establish and retain commercial and patronal control.4 Notwithstanding evidence of intermittent factionalism and tension between corporators, townsfolk, local gentry and industrialists in the growing towns of Cardiff, Neath and Swansea, where public meetings and petitioning on local and national issues had become common, at parliamentary elections each borough had tended to follow the political leadership of its patrons.5

The Stuarts of Bute, who had represented Cardiff and its contributories since 1790, owed their influence in that borough and the constituency to the 1st marquess of Bute (d. 1814), who, having acquired his first wife’s Windsor estates, had added judiciously to them by purchase. To realize their potential as a political base, he had exploited his position as manor lord, withdrawn his support from the sitting Member, Herbert Mackworth of Gnoll (d. 1791), and secured the returns of his sons John (d. 1794), William (d. 1814) and Evelyn (d. 1842).6 As borough lords and county lord lieutenants, the marquesses of Bute nominated the constable of Cardiff Castle and the town clerk and thus controlled corporation elections, appointments and burgess admissions. Most Cardiff freemen, like the 75 admitted in 1818, were honorary and created in anticipation of a contest, and admissions by birth, marriage and servitude had become increasingly infrequent.7 The 2nd marquess of Bute, whose Glamorgan inheritance had been confined to the Windsor estates, found the borough difficult to control, and a dispute within the corporation, ostensibly over charities, fostered by the town clerk Nicholl Wood and his brothers, had developed into an attack on the Castle-corporation alignment. After failing to further their cause by proving that Cardiff was a scot and lot borough, the Woods had opposed the election of Bute’s younger brother and heir apparent Lord James Crichton Stuart in 1818, but their candidate Frederick Wood was soundly defeated. The courts, however, upheld Nicholl Wood’s right to remain town clerk and he retained an influential faction on the corporation.8 Bute was also the borough lord of the market town of Llantrisant, ten miles north-west of Cardiff, which was unique among Glamorgan’s boroughs in granting a burgess qualification retrospectively to children born before their father’s admission. Differential admission charges had been replaced by a standard fee of 16s. 4d. in 1818, when a new register was prepared on Bute’s instructions, after he had secured the election of R.F. Rickards as constable. Bute sought to extinguish the rival influence there of the barrister William Vaughan of Lanelay, who could command 121 freemen and four of the 12 aldermen.9

The street village of Cowbridge (Y Bont-Faen), 12 miles west-north-west of Cardiff, stood entirely in the 1,994-acre parish of Llanblethian, where John Bruce Bruce, the heir apparent to Dyffryn, Aberdare, was the major landowner. Its freemen, an elitist body representing the county’s agriculturists and captains of industry, were honorary, admitted by invitation on payment of £7 12s. plus stamp duty. They included the 5th earl of Stamford’s son, William Booth Grey, whose wife was the life-tenant of Dyffryn, the coppermaster Richard Blakemore† of The Leys, Hereford, the ironmasters William Crawshay and John Josiah Guest*, and Benjamin Hall, dean of Llandaff, whose son and namesake (d. 1817) had briefly represented the county.10 The boroughs of Loughor (Casllwchwr) and Swansea (Abertawe), 50 and 44 miles west of Cardiff, were controlled by the Tory 6th duke of Beaufort, whose agents vetted freeman admissions and appointments to corporate office. Loughor, on the Carmarthenshire border, was a prescription borough, where Beaufort’s steward selected and swore in the presentment jury.11 The transformation of the bustling commercial, cultural and regional centre of Swansea, with its copper works, pottery and shipping, into a fashionable seaside resort, had been thwarted by increased trade and noxious fumes from nearby manufacturing and mining enterprises. Power was vested locally in a self-perpetuating oligarchy sanctioned by the duke, and the corporation, though chartered, frequently functioned like that of a prescription borough. Admission fees varied between 5s. if by birth or servitude, to a guinea if by marriage, and upwards of £50 if by gift, a sum wealthy newcomers and industrialists were happy to pay if invited. Most freemen were resident in the borough or its environs, and as each one shared in the revenue from ‘the burrows’, they benefited directly from Beaufort’s restrictive admission policy. Only aldermen selected by the steward, a post usually combined with that of recorder, could hold the office of portreeve.12

Kenfig (Cynffig) was a ‘straggling’ agricultural community ‘on the edge of the sand hills’ on the eastern shore of Swansea Bay, approximately 11 miles south-south-east of Neath and 50 from Cardiff. It was the pocket borough of the Talbots of Penrice and Margam, who owned all land and property in the parish. The portreeve was their nominee and empowered to swear in a presentment jury and create freemen at will.13 The influence of the Margam estate was also growing in nearby Aberavon (some six miles from Neath), where borough proceedings were apparently conducted in Welsh. Freedom of the borough was exclusive to freemen’s sons aged 21 and above, approved by the borough lords, and admissions were made on the annual hall day, 28 Sept. Here the Talbot family, represented by the Margam trustees during the minority, 1813-24, of Christopher Rice Mansel Talbot*, disputed the mineral rights to recent copper and tin workings, and the principal interests were those of the 5th earl of Jersey and Henry John Grant of Gnoll. The late Herbert Mackworth’s brother, the master freemason Sir Digby Mackworth of Glenusk, Monmouthshire, and Capel Hanbury Leigh† of Pontypool Park, Monmouthshire, who had married Mackworth’s widow and sold Gnoll and its attendant lordships to Grant for £100,000 in 1811, retained considerable influence.14 Neath (Castell-Nedd), 35 miles west-north-west of Cardiff, was known for its industry, freemasons and Quakers, and was linked to the port of Briton Ferry by George Tennant’s canal. Long the pocket borough of the Gnoll estate, its portreeve was chosen annually from among the self-perpetuating corporation of 15 capital burgesses and 12 aldermen. After experiencing greater freedom under Leigh, the corporation had resisted Grant’s attempts to reimpose the close borough management of the Mackworths, and a concerted attempt to mollify them through a mixture of legal offensives and sponsorship of borough improvements was under way. Prospective parliamentary candidates and their supporters were invited to contribute to the town hall, whose foundation stone was laid in 1820 amid great masonic pomp.15

Mandamus proceedings brought by Bute’s Cardiff opponents after the 1818 election had failed, and by Michaelmas 1819 it was anticipated that the contest for the county between Talbot’s stepfather, Sir Christopher Cole* of Penrice, the sitting Member John Edwards* of Rheola, and Booth Grey, would extend to the Boroughs, where, ostensibly on his agents’ advice, Bute decided against offering Crichton Stewart at the next election.16 He instructed his Glamorgan agents to end subscriptions in Lord James’s name, to create no freemen in Cardiff, and to admit only those who could not legally be refused at Llantrisant.17 Bute forbade spending on the county election precipitated by George III’s death and asked his agents to back the Margam candidate, Cole, ‘without publicly declaring’.18 Writing to Bute’s agent and constable of Cardiff Castle Peter Taylor Walker, 6 Feb., the Margam steward Griffith Llywelyn claimed that among the freeholders Cole had two-thirds of Swansea and large majorities at Neath, Bridgend and Cowbridge. He also portrayed a second term for Edwards as a threat to the Boroughs, adding:

The Aberavon burgesses are short in want of stamps and there are about 60 others in the same predicament whom I can answer for as supporters of Lord James ... You may be assured it is a part of the enemy’s plan to contest the Boroughs and so maximise their force in the county ... The duke of Beaufort has not declared unless a letter came today.19

Crichton Stuart, who unlike Bute supported the Whig opposition, had attracted an independent following in Neath and Swansea. He was ordered on the 7th to stay away from Glamorgan until after the king’s funeral, and a notice in the Cambrian cautioned the freemen against promising their votes ‘as a brother freeman intends offering himself ... a plain, clever, honest and independent man ... [who] resides among you’.20 Bute bade his agents await further instructions before canvassing either constituency, 16 Feb., and on the 22nd directed them to support Cole. Margam reciprocated in the Boroughs, where, standing on the Bute interest, the Dowlais co-proprietor Wyndham Lewis of Green Meadow, a supporter since 1817 of Cole, bore the cost of a bitter and hard-fought contest.21 Crichton Stuart’s retirement was not announced until 29 Feb., and he received offers of independent support from Cardiff and Cowbridge, which promised to bring him in free of charge to ‘resist the pretensions of any stranger attempted to be imposed on them by non-residents who are supposed to have influence in some of the boroughs’.22 He set out for Cardiff, but Walker and Sir John Nicholl* persuaded him to turn back, 4 Mar.23 Lewis Weston Dillwyn† of Penlle’rgaer, an influential figure in Swansea and Glamorgan politics who had rejected Bute’s sponsorship in 1818, presumed that Lewis, a relation of the Windsors and the earls of Plymouth, had agreed to sit at his own expense during Bute’s pleasure, probably for the single Parliament in which Crichton Stuart would represent Buteshire.24 To do so Lewis had to outpoll Beaufort’s auditor Ebenezer Ludlow, the town clerk of Bristol and recorder of Swansea, who claimed that he had been invited to stand on the combined Bute-Beaufort interest.25 Swansea corporation contributed £300 towards conveying Ludlow’s supporters to Cardiff and, as Lewis later discovered, 35 guineas was paid to each Loughor and Swansea burgess voting for him.26 Both candidates were Tory barristers opposed to Catholic relief. Llewellyn Traherne of St. Hilary and the Rev. David Williams of Cowbridge nominated Lewis, 8 Mar., and Ludlow, who delivered a two-hour speech expounding Bute’s treachery, was sponsored by his fellow Swansea aldermen, the Rev. Thomas Powell of Cantref and William Grove. After three days Lewis had 132 votes, Ludlow 131.27 Their agents’ difficulties were compounded by switching between parties in the county and Boroughs.28 On 13 Mar. the Cardiff attorney Edward Priest Richards observed:

The election at Cardiff goes on but slowly. It would seem Mr. Ludlow by long speeches and cross examination is endeavouring to gain time by which means he may be enabled to feed the poll to the last, and supply his want of voters in the manner of polling more good ones than Lewis. ... [Rickards entered Cardiff at the head of] above 100 horsemen and seven carriages all loaded with good voters from this borough of Llantrisant. It seemed to have an electric effect on the Ludlow party and deprived them of their faint hope that Vaughan had carried all our votes for them. Indeed, I was told by everyone there had not been anything like such a show from any part of the county. Cardiff is thronged with people and as you may suppose, not of the quietest sort, in as much as fighting seems the order of the evening and reports have reached me that one man of Ludlow’s crew was beat to death. It is generally thought that he cannot keep on the poll many more days. To Mr. Lewis I hope I have done my duty. Tomorrow I must resume my labours for Sir Christopher.29

Richards, Walker and Le Breton took particular care not to provide ‘the cunning barrister’ Ludlow with evidence for a petition. The poll stood at Lewis 246, Ludlow 245 on the fifth day, and thereafter Ludlow polled no more votes. Lewis gained 201 votes over the next two days, before the return was declared.30 He interpreted his success as a triumph for independence and ‘the national spirit of Welshmen’.31 The pollbook reveals general adherence to the direction of the borough lord. Margam’s support for Lewis, who received 154 votes to Ludlow’s four from Kenfig, proved decisive. Lewis also carried Aberavon (53-16), Cardiff (96-21), Cowbridge (40-1), and Llantrisant (87-66); while Ludlow, as expected, carried Loughor (65-2) and Swansea (45-2) and had a 27-24 majority in Neath. According to the Margam agents’ figures (which take no account of new freeman creations), 82 per cent of the estimated electorate polled: 88 per cent in Kenfig; 83 in Llantrisant; 82 in Cowbridge; 81 in Kenfig; 78 in Cardiff and Neath; and 47 in Swansea. Indicating recent burgess creations, the number polled for Loughor, where Ludlow was steward and recorder (67), was 27 greater than the pre-election estimate.32 Commenting on the corporation of Cardiff’s divided vote, alderman William Rees observed, 20 Mar.:

Mr. Le Breton said it was a pity we made ourselves to the Woods rejecting Lord James, or the candidate on the old interest. We never did any such thing. Mr. Charles Vachell junior did speak to Mr. N. Wood and said he hoped there would be no opposition. Mr. N. Wood replied that they would not oppose Lord James if he was put up in opposition to you. This was a mere transaction of five individuals, and not an overture from Lord Bute’s friends here. Indeed, so convinced am I of the innate blackness of the heart of the three brothers, that my feelings recoil at the idea of an overture to any such villains ... They never shall have an overture from us, and though we were this time disappointed in not having our old friend Lord James, you will never find any of us, I trust, who will not be true to Lord Bute, whenever we know his wishes. I hope that justice this long delayed will at last come home to them in your business.33

The number of non-residents polled is unclear, but their use was certainly resented in Cowbridge. Lewis, citing a Commons’ ruling that payment of travelling expenses constituted bribery, directed that his Llantrisant voters should remain unpaid.34

After the election the inhabitants of Cardiff petitioned for agricultural protection; and, encouraged by Dillwyn, Swansea joined Lewis and the ironmasters in opposing legislation to curb blast furnace emissions.35 Bute came under renewed pressure to subscribe to the new town hall at Neath and to authorize and finance freeman admissions at Llantrisant, where Vaughan sought to do the same.36 In Cardiff, as Bute directed, admissions all but ceased.37 The Wood brothers encouraged and the Bute party successfully opposed the adoption of a petition from Cardiff in support of Queen Caroline, but her cause was readily taken up by the inhabitants of Swansea and Neath, where the withdrawal of the case against her was marked by public celebrations and congratulatory addresses.38 Unless tempered, as in Swansea, by appeals for economy and action to combat distress, addresses to the king proved difficult to procure. Cowbridge, Neath and Swansea (where 1,900 signed) petitioned for the restoration of the queen’s name to the liturgy.39 The merchants, traders and inhabitants of Cardiff petitioned the Commons for action to combat economic distress, 26 Feb. 1821, and for protection for agriculture under the corn laws in 1822 and 1826.40 Cardiff led the petitioning for repeal of the coastwise coal duty, which placed the Glamorgan ports at a disadvantage with Newport, where a valuable exemption applied, and for the restoration of trade concessions with Bristol and the extension of the Glamorgan Canal, and against the Western Union Canal bill.41 Swansea petitioned against the poor removal bill, 31 May 1822, and the tax on houses and windows, 25, 28 Feb. 1825.42 The gentry, clergy, merchants and bankers of Cardiff and Swansea petitioned for the abolition of colonial slavery in 1823, and during his 1824 tour the secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society Thomas Clarkson found that Swansea, where Dillwyn had family connections with William Wilberforce*, and Neath, where the Quaker Joseph Price was the proprietor of the Abbey Works, and which also campaigned for new legislation for Dissenter marriages, had well-established local committees.43 Cowbridge also contributed to the 1824 and 1826 campaigns. Petitions from Swansea in 1826 incorporated a plea for equalization of the duties on East and West Indian sugars.44 Excluding Cardiff, where, reflecting local political differences, certain inhabitants petitioned for and others against relief in 1825, petitioning on the Catholic question was confined to diocesan clergy.45 Swansea’s campaign for a new market place was revived at Michaelmas 1824, but the necessary legislation was not enacted until 1828. (A new gas light bill received royal assent, 8 Apr. 1830.)46 The collapse in December 1825 of Gibbins and Eaton’s Swansea bank, which in turn bankrupted Haynes and Company at Neath, rocked both towns. The ‘little Bank of England’ of Lewis and Guest and ‘the Brecon Bank’ of Wilkins and Company rallied effectively during the crisis, but Lewis failed in an important bid to procure government intervention, providing grounds for subsequent dissatisfaction.47 Gibbons and Eaton’s creditors and the inhabitants of Cowbridge, Neath and Swansea petitioned the Lords in favour of the merchant and creditors bill, 19 May 1826.48

Bute and his agents monitored Lewis’s parliamentary conduct closely, and their differences over Crawshay and the Glamorgan Canal Company’s plans, Dowlais Company leases, the Taff Vale tramway, Western Union canal and Telford’s scheme for the development of the port of Cardiff, which the corporation sought to amend, soured their relationship.49 When they met in London, 1 May 1823, Lewis promised Bute that he would retire at the dissolution and raise no opposition to Crichton Stuart’s return for Cardiff Boroughs; and he certainly assisted with the arrangements for Crichton Stuart’s installation as constable of Cardiff Castle that October.50 Lewis’s Dowlais partner Josiah Guest canvassed the Boroughs early in 1824 and negotiated with Vaughan to create freemen in his interest at Llantrisant, but none could be admitted before the court leet in May.51 After it, Bute observed to Rickards, who had recently provided ‘treats’ for the Cardiff freemen:

We may have to thank our opponents for purchasing votes for us. I think you need not fear our opponents’ dinner, for if they are so disposed, there is nothing we have or can do that will prevent them.52

For Bute, as he had informed E.P. Richards in January, the ‘great point ... [was] to prevent any third person from being thought of, and to let my brother’s return be considered as a matter of course’.53 By March 1824 Lewis had withdrawn his 1823 ‘promise’ and applied to Beaufort, Margam and others for future support: but he remained in correspondence with Bute on patronage matters, and in June 1824 the marquess appears to have tried to create a breach between the Dowlais partners by offering Lewis electoral support, presumably elsewhere, in return for commercial concessions.54 The attempt failed, for Rickards wrote from Llantrisant on the 11th:

Lewis has written a letter to Mr. Richard Williams at Cardiff, saying that he has had a personal communication with the duke of Beaufort, which terminated in his promising him his support at the next election on condition that he engages to stand the contest, and which he positively promised to do. If from this your Lordship considers that the struggle is begun, we should lose no time in strengthening and securing Lord James’s interest, and I should be most happy to hear that the Margam as well as Lord Talbot and Dynevor’s interests were on our side. It is said that the duke intends visiting Swansea, and that Mr. Lewis has taken a house near that place to accompany him. There is much talking and some scent movements going on and I have reason to believe that ere long they will be undisguised ... Since writing this letter, Mr. Crawshay and Mr. Guest called on me to solicit my vote and interest in favour of Mr. Lewis, and showed me a letter from the latter, saying that Parliament would be dissolved within a short time. I think he said a month, and that Mr. [John] Edwards of Rheola had written a letter to Mr. Vaughan requesting him to exert all his interest in the borough of Llantrisant as soon as possible. I asked how they stood with the Margam interest, to which they replied, we are quite sure of that.55

Bute planned retaliatory intervention against Beaufort’s heir Lord Worcester* in Monmouth Boroughs;56 and on 17 Oct. 1824 Crichton Stuart wrote to Joseph Phillimore*, who had offered the president of the India board Charles Williams Wynn’s* services as a government intermediary between the two Tory peers, to tone down the dispute:

My adversary, Mr. Wyndham Lewis ... and his friends are making great efforts, apparently being determined to come forward at the next election. The duke of Beaufort has given him his interest in the western Boroughs ... (Swansea and Loughor) and has also got his friends, Lords Talbot and Dynevor, to give their interest, which lie in a borough in our neighbourhood (Llantrisant), which borough was always considered hitherto more immediately connected with our family. The duke of Beaufort has lately been at Swansea for the first time in his life, accompanied by Lord Worcester; I am told that his journey was more for the sake of making enquiries about his estates than for political objects, although the latter, I believe, were not entirely overlooked. I cannot learn at present how far the duke is pledged to support Mr. W. Lewis, or whether it be or not too late to get his grace to withdraw. I should imagine not yet too late. Mr. W. Lewis and his friends are making great exertions, particularly amongst the poorer freemen in these Boroughs, who as you may imagine amongst 1,300 and upwards, must be numerous; but I do not think they would have attempted the business without the hope of support from one of the great interests, which [with] the duke’s has always been considered Mr. Talbot of Margam. The other great interest commands perhaps 300! He [Talbot] will not for reasons I need not now enter into declare at present. That family and this always hitherto went together, and we are again about to support them in the county. Lord Granville Somerset* persuaded the duke to support Mr. Lewis, as the duke stated, from political motives alone. His doing so is, I may venture to say, very impolitic; the sitting Member being so unpopular at Swansea, that his health being given at a public dinner given to the duke, no one chose to take notice or to pay him the usual compliment. I consider this a very good hint given to his Grace, which I would be glad should be taken. At the last election, the duke’s interest was powerfully exerted against this very person he is now to call upon his friends to vote for. That of itself is rather an annoyance to them.57

The two-year private and public canvass continued in London, Bristol and Glamorgan, where Lewis and Crichton Stuart retained attorneys, distributed seasonal gifts and attended the races, sessions and other county and borough functions.58 Burgess creation in Loughor in Lewis’s interest was countered at Bute’s request by the marquess of Cholmondeley, who held land locally, and there was no surge in admissions at Swansea.59 Bute had recently paid his kinswoman, Lord Sandon’s* wife, £32,000 for his grandfather’s remaining Glamorgan estates, and as a mutual family connection, Sandon became an intermediary for Bute and Beaufort in 1824-5.60 Writing to the duke when a dissolution was anticipated in July 1825 and again threatening retaliation in Monmouth, Bute insisted that Lewis’s opposition was commercially not politically motivated and stressed the recent diminution in Crichton Stuart’s anti-government votes, to which Beaufort had objected.61 Ninety-two Cardiff freemen were admitted on Bute’s interest, and his supporters Thomas Charles and the landlord of the Cardiff Arms John Bradley were installed as bailiffs amid a strong show of gentry support at Michaelmas 1824. By 1825, when John Bird and William Prichard were sworn in as bailiffs and 20 freemen admitted, Bute had secured another legal victory over the corporation dissidents and their opposition evaporated. The 59 admissions in 1826 were mainly in his interest, and a canvass in May 1826, immediately before the dissolution, indicated that Crichton Stuart would carry the borough.62 Lewis meanwhile was unexpectedly denied the support of Dunraven’s tenant, John Wick Bennet, and found that he had overestimated the appeal of ‘No Popery’.63 The short-lived anti-Bute broadsheet the Cardiff Recorder ceased publication and the Cambrian, which on 15 Jan. 1825 erroneously reported that Crichton Stuart was standing for Ayr Burghs, remained the usual outlet for election doggerel, reports and correspondence.64

At Neath, where Grant’s attempts to control the corporation had led to further mandamus proceedings, William Gronow of Court Herbert declared early for Crichton Stuart, but Grant delayed doing so until September 1825, after Bute had agreed to sell him the advowson of Neath and to support the Neath tramroad bill, which received royal assent, 9 Mar. 1826.65 Cowbridge sought to obtain a new town hall, weighhouse and market in return for their support.66 Both candidates claimed success at Aberavon, where Jersey declared for Crichton Stuart, and Guest was made a burgess in 1824. However, as at Kenfig, the preference of Christopher Rice Mansel Talbot, following his coming of age, was considered crucial.67 Fearing a coalition against him in the county and Boroughs, Bute regretted that his subscription to Cole’s 1820 fund remained unpaid and that Walker had not secured a promise for the next election from Margam.68 Bute relied on Talbot’s brother-in-law, the Rev. John Montgomery Traherne of Coedarhydyglyn, St. Hilary, to secure his allegiance. Montgomery Traherene informed Talbot on his return from the continent in December 1825 that in his absence Lewis had appropriated the Kenfig books.69 In February 1826 Talbot promised Crichton Stewart his interest. Persevering, Lewis asked his wife Mary Anne to put it about that ‘the Talbot interest is not as powerful as represented, the whole of the Kenfig voters being only 235, one hundred of which I am nearly sure of’.70 Blakemore, now co-owner of the Plymouth works, endorsed Lewis as an anti-Catholic Tory, but Lewis’s combination of industrialists’ and independent support from Swansea (38 votes) could achieve little without Beaufort and Vaughan’s assistance, and his dealings with the supposedly ‘neutral’ Dillwyn, his intermediary with Bute over Dowlais, and with Beaufort’s son and political manager Lord Granville Somerset assumed a new urgency.71

Rickards had warned Bute repeatedly since 1824 of the threat posed by Vaughan and Lewis, and urged him to create Llantrisant freemen rather than ‘run the risk of their being got at by the opposite party’.72 Eighty-one were admitted in 1825, and 24 in 1826. Most, as Bute requested, were ‘elderly people who are either unmarried or have no children, provided always that they are of a respectable character and who, if not my tenants, are to say the least employed in works where the proprietors are at present friendly to me’.73 Llantrisant also looked to Bute for a new National School and bridge and a revival of the lead industry in the parish.74 Bute’s hopes that Vaughan could be bought off with the Llanharan exchanges were dashed and, partly owing to the diligence and social skills of Lewis’s wife, by April 1826 he was one of Lewis’s staunchest supporters and canvassing companions.75 On 15 or 16 May Bute’s friends foiled an attempt by Vaughan to convene a special borough court to admit 46 Lewis supporters.76 Lewis had already spent over £500 (mostly at the Mackworth Arms) on the Loughor freemen, but their court leet on 23 May was dissolved in uproar amid criticism of Beaufort for denying the freemen the right to use the common by letting it to the portreeve, and no new freemen were created.77 Talbot’s declaration prompted a virulent newspaper campaign. Crichton Stuart was mocked as a pro-Catholic with no real interest in Cardiff, who had required a stopgap seat. Borough patronage was ridiculed and, drawing on elements from Edwards’s 1820 campaign, Lewis was portrayed as the ‘Welshman’s friend’, the champion of Protestantism, and the candidate best equipped to represent commercial interests.78 On 25 May, with a close contest still confidently predicted, the Gloucester Journal and the Bristol Mercury endorsed Crichton Stuart, claiming that he had the support of ‘Talbot of Margam and all the leading interests’, including ‘William Booth Grey, Mr. Charles Kemeys Kemeys Tynte*, Mr. Capel Hanbury Leigh, and Mr. Henry Grant, etc.’ The anti-Beaufort Bristol Mercury attributed Crichton Stuart’s popularity to his opposition votes on ‘the side of the people’ and Beaufort’s support for Lewis, and reported that the duke’s opponents in Monmouth intended travelling to Cardiff ‘free of charge’ to support Lord James.79 Lewis had sought alternative seats (he was defeated at Camelford and Maidstone in 1826), and a ‘saving (escape) clause’ in his 1824 promise to Beaufort to stand to the last permitted him, ‘if certain gentlemen should certify his having no fair chance of success ... to withdraw’.80 Doing so, he informed Bute by letter, 30 May 1826, that he was prepared to give Crichton Stuart his support, and shortly afterwards they reached an amicable settlement over land sales.81 The Cambrian complained that Lewis had acted

in London, without his having previously consulted his friends in the country, or, as it is believed, the considerable interests that wished well to the honourable and constitutional principles he professed. Much regret is manifested by the friends and partisans of Mr. Lewis at his sudden determination.82

According to Bird, a large congregation, most in Crichton Stuart’s colours, attended St. Mary’s church in Cardiff on the eve of the election, and between six and seven thousand witnessed his return, which Talbot proposed, and William Nicholls, the mayor of Cowbridge, seconded. William Grove of Swansea also spoke in his support. Dinner was provided for 1,200, and the ball was held at Cardiff Castle. The Cambrian’s report pointed to the ‘timely secession of Mr. Wyndham Lewis’.83

The corporations, inhabitants and industrialists of Neath and Swansea, led by Dillwyn and John Henry Vivian (the future Baron Swansea), subscribed £1,520 to retain lawyers to oppose the establishment of a countywide turnpike trust under the 1827 Glamorgan roads bill, as proposed by Guest and Sir John Morris, and succeeded in having Telford’s plan for an east-west road amended so that bridging of lower reaches of the Nedd and Tawe did not interfere with manufacture and shipping.84 A meeting of Swansea merchants and ship owners, 14 Dec. 1826, petitioned the Commons for better regulation of the steam vessels engaged in the coastal trade, which they claimed were damaging their harbour.85 Cardiff and Cowbridge petitioned against the 1827 and 1828 corn importation bills.86 Swansea petitioned against slavery in 1827 and was the first of the boroughs to call an anti-slavery meeting in May 1828, when Cardiff, Cowbridge and Neath also petitioned. All incorporated resolutions for equalization of the duties on East and West Indian sugars, ‘so that the excessive tax on East Indian produce may be removed’. The preamble to the Neath petition regretted the lack of progress since 1823.87 Clergy of all denominations supported the anti-slavery campaign, but lobbying for repeal of the Test Acts in 1827 and 1828 was confined to the Baptists, Dissenters, Independents and Unitarians of Cardiff, Neath and Swansea, and the Baptists and town of Cowbridge.88 When Catholic emancipation, which Crichton Stuart and Bute had long supported, was conceded in 1829, Cardiff, with its suburbs Llandaff, Whitchurch and Radyr, sent favourable and hostile petitions to both Houses, 5, 6, 12 Mar. The heavily signed anti-Catholic ones were said to be ‘the work of Bristol emissaries’.89 Forwarding the petitions to Bute, 3 Mar., Walter Coffin of Llandaff Court observed that the pro-relief petition

though only signed by 99 persons contains the names of seven county magistrates living near Cardiff, Robert Jones, J.M. Traherne, J.H. Moggridge, George Thomas, T.B. Rous, John Nathaniel Rees, and W. Coffin; and three clergymen of the Church of England - Traherne, George Thomas and Calvert Jones - and the names are generally very respectable ... [But] most unwarrantable means have been taken to get these petitions against the Catholics numerously signed. Inflammatory handbills, etc., etc., and last night I understand they were taken to the Wesleyan Meeting House to be signed by all the people there.90

The inhabitants of Cowbridge sent a late petition to the Lords against all concessions, but Swansea and the other boroughs kept aloof from the petitioning.91 Legislation and plans for the Bute ship canal and development of the port of Cardiff were available for consultation when Bute attended the election of John Wick Bennet and John Bird as bailiffs in 1829. The canal companies and Blakemore, as proprietor of the Melin Griffith tinplate works, employed counsel, petitioned, and did all they could to prevent its passage; but Guest and Lewis were among its staunchest supporters, and it received royal assent, 16 July 1830.92 Cardiff’s merchants and inhabitants singled out the coastwise coal duty as the principal cause of their economic distress in 1830 and led the local campaign for their repeal, which Walter Coffin endeavoured with some success to co-ordinate and extend to the Forest of Dean and other similarly disadvantaged outlets, although they did not as yet petition.93 In May Cardiff’s inhabitants petitioned cautioning both Houses against renewing the East India Company’s charter or imposing any restriction on trading rights.94 Swansea coveted full assize town status and revived its campaign (successful in 1834) to coincide with publication of the law commissioners’ 1829 report, which proposed abolishing the Welsh judicature and courts of great sessions and setting up a new assize district centred on Neath for Glamorgan and part of Breconshire. Bute favoured almost any scheme that would keep the assizes at Cardiff under the new system, and this was achieved by a late government amendment to the administration of justice bill, enacted immediately before the 1830 dissolution.95

No concerted attempt was made to involve the Boroughs in the vain opposition raised to the transfer of the county representation from Talbot to Cole at the 1830 general election, although this was clearly contemplated.96 Bute was loath to spend and wanted the election held ‘on the earliest possible day’.97 His refusal to make the vicar, Brown Williams, a Llantrisant freeman had caused problems, but he had quietly strengthened his position there after the ailing Edwards succeeded to Vaughan’s estates in July 1829.98 Talbot was planning to construct a port at Aberavon and was reluctant to spend on stamps for Kenfig freemen, who ‘may be old men and not likely to be of use in another election’.99 It also emerged that certain Aberavon and Loughor freemen had not been paid the full £3 they customarily demanded in 1826 and would now have ‘to be paid as they always have been’.100 Crichton Stuart and his young family arrived at Cardiff Castle, 26 July, and he was returned unopposed, 1 Aug., proposed by the militia commander, Richard Morgan of Llandough Castle, and seconded by Rickards, followed by the portreeve of Swansea, John Grove, who spoke convincingly in Welsh of emancipation as the harbinger of peace. Talbot attended briefly, 100 dined at the Castle and the Angel Inn provided a further 400 dinners. Estimates of attendance at the ball, 18 Aug. 1830, varied between 200 and 400.101

The Wesleyan Methodists and Welsh Calvinistic Methodists strenuously supported the 1830-1 petitioning campaign against slavery, and most chapels in Cardiff, Cowbridge, Llantrisant, Neath and Swansea sent petitions to Parliament in November and December 1830 and April 1831.102 Both Houses received petitions for repeal of the assessed taxes from Cardiff in December 1830.103 The coal owners and inhabitants of Cowbridge, Loughor, Neath and Swansea, where Vivian’s plans for a new harbour had been revived, with Beaufort’s approval, and a special coal committee formed, petitioned with Cardiff for repeal of the coastwise coal duty in December 1830 and February 1831, shortly before it was conceded.104 In March Cardiff’s shipowners and merchants petitioned against the proposed tariff changes on timber.105 Cowbridge, where ‘Swing’ riots in the Vale prompted the establishment of a Society for the Improvement of the Working Population, and Neath petitioned for tithe commutation in February and March 1831.106 Crichton Stewart divided against the Wellington ministry when they were brought down on the civil list, 15 Nov. 1830, and supported Lord Grey’s ministry and their reform bill. It proposed an east-west division of the constituency, separating the Bute and Beaufort interests. Cardiff was to keep Cowbridge and Llantrisant, while the cathedral city of Llandaff (population 1,299) and iron towns of Aberdare (3,961) and Merthyr (23,500) were to be enfranchised and added to it. Aberavon, Kenfig, Loughor and Neath were designated as contributories of Swansea, where Vivian immediately announced his candidature, leaving Dillwyn, who had been requisitioned and offered Beaufort’s endorsement, to look to the county to avoid ‘disunity’ among the reformers.107 Talbot supported the bill and was surprised that it did not disfranchise Aberavon and Kenfig, where many voters were non-resident.108 According to Rickards’s parliamentray return of 9 Apr., Cardiff had 367, Cowbridge 56, Llandaff 19 and Llantrisant 38 £10 houses; and he calculated privately that ‘within the boundaries’ and ‘excluding paupers’, Llantrisant had 16 freemen who qualified as £10 householders, 12 with a house and land of that value, 16 ‘new’ £10 voters and 43 ‘old’ freeman voters.109 The corporations and inhabitants of Cowbridge, Neath and Swansea met and pledged their support for the bill in petitions received by the Commons, 15 Mar., and the Lords, 15, 25, 28 Mar. 1831.110 A favourable petition from Bridgend requesting enfranchisement, 15 Mar., referred to the high number of Cardiff Boroughs freemen resident in the town who would lose their votes under the seven-mile rule.111 Despite heavy petitioning and an all-party lobby, ministers refused Merthyr’s request for separate enfranchisement, claiming that it was adequately provided for by its inclusion in the Cardiff group and their late decision to award Glamorgan a second Member.112

Between 1824 and the collapse of the Wellington ministry, political differences between Bute and Crichton Stuart were largely overlooked, but Crichton Stuart’s refusal to support Bute on the highly publicized question of reform made the marquess consider putting forward another candidate in the event of a dissolution.113 Richards, however warned that success required the combined strength of Bute, Beaufort and Margam plus a resident family candidate. As Crichton Stuart’s nomination was certain, with or without Bute’s approval, their interest could easily be destroyed.114 Bute’s agents acted for Crichton Stuart at the general election in May 1831 precipitated by the bill’s defeat, and he canvassed Neath and Swansea to popular acclaim. He was proposed, 2 May, by Bruce, who in 1829, with Bute’s backing, had become the first stipendiary magistrate for Merthyr and Aberdare, and seconded by the reformer and militia colonel Richard Jones of Ffonmon Castle. Bruce referred to the family pressures which Crichton Stuart faced as a reformer, Jones to his admirable votes, and the portreeve of Swansea, Charles Collins, spoke of his popularity in the western boroughs. Crichton Stuart ended speculation by announcing that he would seek election for the new Cardiff Boroughs district ‘next time’.115 Reporting to Bute, E.P. Richards observed that ‘very little was said of reform, although the allusions to it were received with applause’.116 A Swansea meeting addressed by Vivian, 3 May 1831, adopted an address thanking the king for dissolving Parliament.117

After the election Cardiff petitioned for repeal of the stamp duty on marine insurance, and the Society for the Improvement of the Working Population extended their activities.118 Interest focused on post-reform representation and fears that ‘extravagant notions of reform’ and rioting at Merthyr Tydfil would spread to Cardiff and Swansea.119 The reintroduced bill made no additional provision for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare, and although doing so placed him, against his will, at odds with ministers, Crichton Stuart supported Merthyr’s case for separate representation based on population, its importance as an iron town and its distance and economic divergence from Cardiff and the other contributories. As it would dominate and make the proposed Cardiff constituency more difficult to manage, Bute’s agents encouraged the corporations of Cardiff and Cowbridge to petition the Commons for Merthyr’s separate enfranchisement, 5 Aug. 1831.120 Refusing concessions in the aftermath of the riots, ministers pointed to Cardiff’s role as the port of Merthyr, to which it was linked by canal, and to the additional Glamorgan seat conceded. The anti-reformer James Lewis Knight, a brother of Bruce and William Bruce Knight, dean of Llandaff, opposed the inclusion of the city of Landaff in the Cardiff group, 10 Aug., and caused great annoyance in Swansea by apparently suggesting that Merthyr Tydfil could be accommodated by returning the Swansea group to Cardiff, and objecting to the Swansea group because it ‘was unfortunately composed of two parties, both anxious to oppose each other’.121 A Swansea meeting, 13 Aug., hurriedly petitioned against any alteration in the bill, pointing to its own merits over Merthyr. Vivian took the petition to London, where he lobbied ministers before it was presented, 16 Aug., and the idea was dropped.122 As resolved at public meetings, the inhabitants of Cardiff, Cowbridge, Neath and Swansea petitioned the Lords urging the bill’s passage, 4 Oct., and following its defeat Neath and Swansea sent addresses pledging loyalty to the king and confidence in Grey’s ministry.123 The revised bill announced in December 1831 left the Swansea group unchanged, removed Llandaff from the Cardiff group, but made no additional provision for Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare.124 A co-ordinated and bipartisan campaign by Cardiff corporation, Merthyr’s Nonconformist ministers and ironmasters (except Crawshay), and the South Wales Members urged Merthyr’s enfranchisement claims early in 1832. E.P. Richards, who organized the Cardiff petition, suggested that they press for ‘two Members for Cardiff and Merthyr’ should they fail.125 Guest wrote to Lewis’s brother-in-law, 10 Feb., that the people ‘begin to be anxious to have [reform] disposed of in some way’ and feared cholera.126 Although defeated on the Gateshead amendment, 5 Mar., Merthyr Tydfil and Aberdare were conceded the third Member intended for Monmouthshire, 14 Mar. Guest immediately declared his candidature for the new constituency. Bruce, as stipendiary magistrate, was the returning officer, and, as the commissioners recommended, the boundaries were drawn to include Cefn-Coed-y-Cymer and Aberdare.127 They calculated that Aberdare had at least 135 and Merthyr 569 £10 houses, of which 362 were owned by the Dowlais Company. In December 1832, when the registered electorate was 520, Guest saw off a pre-poll challenge by the secretary to the Glamorgan Canal Company, Williams Meyrick, during which he strenuously objected to the vestry’s use as the designated election venue. Contests were usual but Henry Austen Bruce, Bruce’s son, was the only Conservative returned for Merthyr before it was awarded a second Member in 1868.128 Swansea addressed the king and the Cardiff Tories celebrated in May 1832, when the bill was jeopardized by defeats in the Lords, Grey’s resignation and the king’s overture to Wellington. Swansea and Neath rejoiced in the ministry’s reinstatement and celebrated the bill’s enactment.129

As the commissioners recommended, Swansea’s boundaries were redrawn to include Morriston.130 One- thousand-three-hundred-and-seven electors were registered in the Swansea district in October 1832: 481 freemen (64 from Swansea, 43 from Neath, 146 from Loughor, 177 from Kenfig, to which part of Pyle had been added, and 52 from Aberavon); and 826 £10 voters (624, 137, 31, and 34 respectively from Swansea, Neath, Loughor and Aberavon, which, under the Boundary Act, acquired Hafod-y-Porth). There were no Kenfig £10 electors.131 No opposition was expected to Vivian, who claimed to be a ‘Whig of the old school’, but Bute and Beaufort contemplated threatening one if he refused to support a Conservative for the county. The future Chartist Lewis Rotley started, 5 Dec. 1832, but desisted.132 The Swansea district was contested only once (in 1874) between 1832 and 1885, and representation remained exclusive to the Liberal Vivian and the Dillwyn family members. The Boundary Act added Cardiff’s northern suburbs and the rest of the village of Llanblethian to the Cardiff constituency, which in October 1832 registered 686 voters: 232 £10 householders (169 in Cardiff, 55 in Cowbridge and nine in Llantrisant) and 454 freemen (220 for Cardiff, 202 for Llantrisant, where Bute had paid for further admissions in April 1831, and 50 for Cowbridge).133 Crichton Stuart’s return seemed assured, but he categorically refused to match his politics to his brother’s, and he was obliged to retire in October 1832 to make way for a proven Conservative, John Nicholl of Merthyr Mawr, who outpolled him when he was nominated in absentia by T.B. Rous of Cwrtyrala and Dr. Malkin of Cowbridge in December 1832.134 Nicholl retained the seat until defeated by the Liberal Walter Coffin in 1852, and thereafter the representation, which was contested in 1868, 1874 and 1880, remained exclusively Liberal. Cardiff Castle influence persisted and Crichton Stuart’s son James Frederick Dudley Crichton Stuart was the Member, 1857-80.135

Author: Margaret Escott


Draws also on Samuel Lewis’s Topographical Dict. of Wales (unpaginated).

  • 1. The qualification was disputed in Cardiff. See below.
  • 2. NLW ms 6596 E, breakdown of Cardiff Boroughs electorate, by borough patron, prepared for the Margam estate early in 1820. The estimate of 382 freemen in the December 1831 return (PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 509) is unlikely to have included all eight boroughs.
  • 3. NLW ms 6596 E.
  • 4. P.D.G. Thomas, Politics in 18th Cent. Wales, 30, 42, 52-53; NLW ms 6596 E.
  • 5. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 500-1.
  • 6. R. Grant, Parl. Hist. Glam. 1542-1976, p. 34.
  • 7. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 509; (1835), xxiii. 321-30.
  • 8. J.H. Matthews, Cardiff Recs. ii. 112-13; J. Davies, Cardiff and the Marquesses of Bute, 31-42, 62, 86; Bodl. Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/39, 42; L. Hargett, ‘Cardiff’s "Spasm of Rebellion" in 1818’, Morgannwg, xxi (1977), 69-88.
  • 9. PP (1831-2), xli. 9-100; (1835), xxiii. 447-50; NLW ms 6596 E; J. Barry Davies, Freemen and Ancient Borough of Llantrisant, 38-52, 95-149.
  • 10. PP (1831-2), xli. 95-96; (1835), xxiii. 355-60; NLW ms 6596 E; NLW, Bute mss L60/26; Barry Davies, 40.
  • 11. PP (1831-2), xli. 123-5; (1835), 453-4.
  • 12. Ibid. (1835), xxiii. 519-29; (1831-2), xlv. 111-15; Swansea ed. Glanmor Williams, 89-100; G. Roberts, Social and Economic Survey of Swansea, 11-19; The City of Swansea ed. R. Griffiths, 7-15; J.R. Alban, Cal. of Swansea Freemen’s Recs. 1-5; R. Sweet, ‘Stability and Continuity: Swansea Politics and Reform, 1780-1820’, WHR, xviii (1996), 14-39.
  • 13. PP (1831-2), xli. 121-2; (1835), xxiii. 405.
  • 14. Ibid. (1831-2), xli. 117-8; (1835), xxiii. 301-3; R. Hanbury Tenison, Hanburys of Mon. 219; J. Bradney, Mon. Co. Hist. iii (pt. 2), 251-3; G. Eaton, Hist. Neath, 83, 90.
  • 15. Eaton, 90-95; PP (1831-2), xli. 127; (1835), xxiii. 469.
  • 16. Hargett, 79-84; Christ Church, Oxf. Phillimore mss, Crichton Stuart to Phillimore, 17 Oct. 1824.
  • 17. Glam. RO D/DA7/7, 9.
  • 18. Bute mss L63/7; Glam. RO D/DA8/9, 12.
  • 19. Bute mss L63/11.
  • 20. Glam. RO D/DA8/11; Bute mss L63/9-14; Cambrian, 12 Feb. 1820.
  • 21. Bute mss L63/12, 14, 19; Glam. RO D/DA8/15-18.
  • 22. Glam RO. D/DA11/47.
  • 23. Ibid.
  • 24. NLW, Penllergaer mss, diary of Lewis Weston Dillwyn, 1, 4, 7 Mar. 1820.
  • 25. Cambrian, 4 Mar.; R.D. Rees, ‘Parl. Rep. S. Wales, 1790-1830’ (Reading Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1962), 247.
  • 26. Roberts, 22; Glam. RO D/DA12/130.
  • 27. Bristol Mercury, 13 Mar.; The Times, 15 Mar. 1820.
  • 28. Penllergaer mss 1120-2; H.M. Williams, ‘Geographic Distribution of Political Opinion in Glam. Parl. Elections, 1820-1950’ (Univ. of Wales M.A. thesis, 1951), 34-37.
  • 29. Bristol Mercury, 13 Mar.; The Times, 15 Mar. 1820.
  • 30. Glam. RO D/DA8/21, 22; PP (1835), xxiii. 530.
  • 31. Bristol Mercury, 20 Mar.; Cambrian, 25 Mar. 1820.
  • 32. Williams, 33-34.
  • 33. Bute mss L63/22.
  • 34. Thomas, 52; Bute mss L63/29, 48.
  • 35. Cambrian, 13 May 1820; CJ, lxxv. 247; LJ, liii. 118.
  • 36. Glam. RO D/DA8/12-25, 27, 29.
  • 37. Glam. RO D/DA8/42, 46; PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 509.
  • 38. Glam. RO D/DA8/33; Cambrian, 14, 21 Oct.; The Times, 23 Dec. 1820.
  • 39. Seren Gomer v (1821), 61-62; CJ, lxxvi. 12, 108; LJ, liv. 32. The Times, 27 Jan. 1821.
  • 40. CJ, lxxvi. 108; lxxvii. 247; lxxxi. 191; LJ, liv. 259.
  • 41. CJ, lxxviii. 372, 454; lxxix. 81, 386; lxxx. 49, 102; LJ, lvii. 1097; Cambrian, 22 May 1824, 19 Feb., 1 Oct. 1825.
  • 42. Ibid. lxxvii. 304; lxxx. 127, 133; Cambrian, 12 Feb. 1825.
  • 43. Cambrian, 3 May 1823; CJ, lxxviii. 292, 312; lxxix. 418; LJ, lv. 648; LJ, lvi. 77; The Times, 16 Mar., 27 May 1824; NLW ms 14984 A, pp. 6-9.
  • 44. Cambrian, 8 May 1824; The Times, 7 Feb., 23 Mar. 1826; CJ, lxxx. 11, 86, 200, 217; LJ, lviii. 44, 95.
  • 45. LJ, lvii. 832, 833; CJ, lxxx. 309. See GLAMORGAN.
  • 46. Cambrian, 16, 23 Oct. 1824; CJ, lxxxiii. 61, 173, 180, 215, 302, 318, 375; LJ, lx. 479; lxii. 207.
  • 47. Glam. RO D/DA12/135, 136; Penrice and Margam mss 9235, W. to T. Llewellyn, 19 Dec., Talbot to G. Llewellyn, 24 Dec.; Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/58, 60; Cambrian, 24, 31 Dec. 1825, 21 Jan. 1826; Ball, 7.
  • 48. LJ, lviii. 52.
  • 49. Bute mss L64/10, 12, 22; L65/19, 32, 35, 37; L66/2-7, 10, 13, 15-23; Glam. RO D/DA 11/9-11.
  • 50. Bute mss L67/22; E. Ball, ‘Glamorgan: A Study of the Co. and the Work of its Members, 1825-1835’ (Univ. of London Ph.D. thesis, 1965), 22.
  • 51. Bute mss L65/39; L67/3, 8.
  • 52. Ibid. L67/16.
  • 53. Glam. RO D/DA 11/2.
  • 54. Bute mss L67/11, 20, 22.
  • 55. Ibid. L67/23
  • 56. See MONMOUTH.
  • 57. Phillimore mss, Crichton Stuart to Phillimore, 17 Oct. 1824.
  • 58. Glam. RO D/DA11/47-91; D/DA12/6, 12, 13, 116, 118; Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/49, 52-76; D/II/B/63; Bute mss L67/23-26, 32, 38; NLW, Penrice and Margam mss 9235, W. Lewis to T. Llewellyn, 23 Sept. 1825; Cambrian, 25 Sept. 1824, 15, 29 Oct. 1825.
  • 59. Cambrian, 2 Oct. 1824; Alban, passim.
  • 60. Glam. RO D/DA11/11; DA12/94, 104; Davies, 42.
  • 61. Glam. RO D/DA12/94 (ii).
  • 62. Cambrian, 9 Oct. 1824, 1 Oct. 1825; PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 509; ms diary of Edward Bird, Feb.-June 1826, reproduced in David, 35.
  • 63. Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/50, 52, 53, 57, 68.
  • 64. Matthews, ii. 112-13; Cambrian, 15, 22 Jan., 2 Apr. 1825 and passim.
  • 65. Bute mss L67/20, 26, 32; L68/21; LJ, lviii. 95.
  • 66. Cambrian, 2 Oct. 1824.
  • 67. Bute mss L67/38; Glam. RO D/DA11/39; Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/49; Cambrian, 2 Oct. 1824.
  • 68. Glam. RO D/DA11/17, 42, 47, 49, 50; 12/116; Bute mss L63/43; L67/23, 34; Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/47.
  • 69. Glam. RO D/DA12/135, 136.
  • 70. Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/70.
  • 71. Ibid. D/I/D/49, 55, 63, 64, 70-79; Bute mss L68/14, 17, 20, 23; Glam. RO D/DA12/100; 135, 136.
  • 72. Bute mss L67/16, 42; L68/4; L69/1; Glam. RO D/DA12/17, 24, 74-77, 80, 108, 125-9; Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/53.
  • 73. Ball, 42; Glam. RO D/DA12/74.
  • 74. Glam. RO D/DA11/91, 102, 103; Bute mss L68/3; L69/1.
  • 75. Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/53, 73, 74, 76-79; Glam. RO D/DA12, 24, 30; Bute mss L69/29.
  • 76. Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/79.
  • 77. David, 251-4; Bristol Mercury, 29 May 1826.
  • 78. Cambrian, 4 Mar.-3 June 1826; David, 428-50; NLW ms 6575 E, passim.
  • 79. Gloucester Jnl. 29 May; Bristol Mercury 29 May; Courier, 30 May, 5 June 1826.
  • 80. Bute mss L68/20.
  • 81. Ibid. L69/39, 40; L70/29; Davies, 65.
  • 82. Cambrian, 3 June 1826.
  • 83. David, 35; Cambrian, 10, 17 June; The Times, 15 June; Courier, 15 June 1826.
  • 84. Cambrian, 2, 9 Sept. 1826, 24 Feb., 5 May 1827; Ball, 82-90 [Vivian mss, 23, 29 Oct. 1826, 5 Mar., 17 May 1827]; CJ, lxxxii. 218, 348, 370, 439, 44, 452, 455, 475, 497, 558.
  • 85. Cambrian, 23 Dec. 1826; CJ, lxxxii. 357.
  • 86. CJ, lxxxii. 191; LJ, lix. 104; LJ, lx. 104; The Times, 20 Feb. 1827.
  • 87. Cambrian, 17, 24 Feb. 1827, 3, 10, 31 May, 7 June 1828; CJ, lxxxii. 340; lxxxiii. 383, 435, 493; LJ, lx. 54, 486, 533, 599; Cardiff Pub. Lib. Bute estate letterbks. ii. 28.
  • 88. CJ, lxxxii. 498, 505, 520; lxxxiii. 79, 90-91, 96; LJ, lx. 56, 66, 71, 72, 80, 81, 89, 178; Cambrian, 15 Mar. 1828.
  • 89. Bute estate letterbks. ii. 137-9; CJ, lxxxiv. 105, 109; LJ, lxi. 136, 185; The Times, 6 Mar.; Cambrian, 7 Mar.; Bristol Mercury, 17 Mar. 1829.
  • 90. Bute mss L72/27.
  • 91. LJ, lxi. 380; Ball, 195.
  • 92. Cambrian, 3 Oct. 1829, 3 July 1830; CJ, lxxxv. 48, 64, 132, 176-7, 192-3, 328, 335, 380, 471, 478, 581, 646; LJ, lxii. 769, 896; Bute estate letterbks. ii. 214-7; Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/124; Bute mss L73/36, 41, 43.
  • 93. Bute mss L72/47, 49; L73/20, 29, 31, 66; CJ, lxxxv. 164; LJ, lxii. 113; The Times, 12 Mar. 1830.
  • 94. CJ, lxxxv. 383; LJ, lxii. 305.
  • 95. Ball, 143-5; David, 67; Cambrian, 15, 22, 29 Nov., 6, 13, 20, 27 Dec. 1828; PP (1829), ix. 42-44, 63, 387, 394, 403-9, 412, 415; Cawdor, Letter to Lord Lyndhurst; Penllergaer mss, Dillwyn diary, 30 Apr., 25 Oct., 30 Nov. 1828, 6, 15, 21 Apr., 2, 21 May 1829; Bute estate letterbks. ii. 111-13, 147; Bute mss L71/89-95; L72/27, 42, 102, 106, 109; L72/27, 28; L74/27, 28; Glam. RO D/DA15/42.
  • 96. Bute mss L72/106; L73/77, 78; Penrice and Margam mss 9238, Talbot to G. Llewellyn, 7 June, 7 July; Dillwyn diary, 6 July 1830; Vivian mss A339; Bute estate letterbks. ii. 228; Cambrian, 10, 17, 24 July 1830.
  • 97. Bute mss L73/76; Bute estate letterbks. ii. 223-30.
  • 98. Bute mss L72/15, 101, 102; L73/21; Glam. RO D/DA15/45, 49, 50; Bute estate letterbks. ii. 177-8.
  • 99. Penrice and Margam mss 9236, Talbot to Llewellyn, 14 May 1827; 9237, Talbot to G. Llewellyn, 27 Sept. 1829.
  • 100. Bute estate letterbks. ii. 229-33.
  • 101. Ibid. 230-40; Cambrian, 7 Aug.; Bristol Mercury, 31 Aug. 1830.
  • 102. CJ, lxxxvi. 126, 132, 144, 163, 176, 183, 444; LJ, lxiii. 142, 161, 181, 487, 488.
  • 103. CJ, lxxxvi. 176; LJ, lxiii. 179.
  • 104. CJ, lxxxvi. 184, 199, 226, 237; LJ, lxiii. 179, 212; Cambrian, 5, 26 Feb., 5 Mar. 1831.
  • 105. LJ, lxiii. 317.
  • 106. Bute estate letterbks. ii. 259-60; Cambrian, 1, 29 Jan., 12 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 307; LJ, lxiii. 380.
  • 107. D.A. Wager, ‘Welsh Politics and Parl. Reform, 1780-1832’, WHR, vii (1974), 436-7; PP (1831-2), xli. 92, 102, 107; Cambrian Quarterly Mag. iii (1831), 263; Dillwyn diary, 26 Feb., 9-16 Mar., 20 Apr. 1831; Bute mss L74/26.
  • 108. Penrice and Margam mss 9238, Talbot to Llewellyn, 7, 15 Mar. 1831.
  • 109. Bute mss L74/16; Bute estate letterbks. ii. 270;
  • 110. Cambrian, 12, 19 Mar., 2 Apr. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 381; LJ, lxiii. 325, 380, 384.
  • 111. CJ, lxxxvi. 381.
  • 112. Wager, WHR, vii. 441; CJ, lxxxvi. 388; Cambrian, 26 Mar. 9, 23 Apr. 1831; Bute mss L74/15, 24; Penrice and Margam mss 9238, Talbot to G. Llewellyn, 19, 20 Apr. 1831.
  • 113. Add. 51590, Ellis to Lady Holland, 7 Mar. 1831; Bute estate letterbks. ii. 267.
  • 114. Bute estate letterbks. ii. 267-8.
  • 115. Cambrian, 23, 30 Apr., 7, 14 May; Mon. Merlin, 7, 14 May 1831.
  • 116. Bute estate letterbks. ii. 273-5.
  • 117. Cambrian, 14 May 1831.
  • 118. Ibid. 4 June 1831; Bute mss L74/61; CJ, lxxxvi. 613.
  • 119. Merthyr Mawr mss F/52/18, 19; Bute mss L74/61, 88, 122.
  • 120. NLW, Maybery mss 6581; Bute mss L74/145, 152; CJ, lxxxvi. 730, 733.
  • 121. Maybery mss 6585; Bute mss L74/152, 160, 161; Wager, 445-6.
  • 122. The Times, 17 Aug. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 758; Ball, 170.
  • 123. Cambrian, 1, 22 Oct. 1831; LJ, lxiii. 1046-8, 1054.
  • 124. Wager, 447.
  • 125. M. Elsas, Iron in the Making, 218-19; Hughenden Dep. D/I/D/133; Bute mss L75/6, 12, 14-16, 22, 23, 28; Brougham mss, Stuart to Brougham, 10 Dec. 1831; Bute estate letterbks. ii. 307-9; CJ, lxxxvii. 126, 133, 189.
  • 126. Hughenden Dep. D/I/F/155.
  • 127. Maybery mss 6590, 6599; Bute mss L75/34, 41; Mon. Merlin, 17 Mar.; Penrice and Margam mss 9239, Talbot to G. Llewellyn, 20 Mar. 1832; PP (1831-2), xli. 101-5.
  • 128. Maybery mss 6599; PP (1831-2), xli. 88, 102, 101-105; Ball, 64-65.
  • 129. Bute estate letterbks. ii. 333-4; Mon. Merlin, 12 May; Cambrian, 30 June 1832.
  • 130. Mon. Merlin, 12 May; Cambrian, 30 June 1832.
  • 131. PP (1831-2), xli. 115, 119, 121, 124; (1835), xxiii. 532.
  • 132. Cambrian, 30 June, 29 Sept.; Mon. Merlin, 12 May, 15, 22 Dec. 1832; NLW ms 6525 E.
  • 133. PP (1831-2), xli. 96; (1835), xxiii. 329; Cambrian, 6 Oct. 1832.
  • 134. Bute estate letterbks, iii. 14-16, 20-50, 57-70; Merthyr Mawr mss F/52/27; The Times, 11, 13, 18, 22 Oct.; Cambrian, 14, 21, 28 Dec. 1832.
  • 135. M. Cragoe, Culture, Politics, and National Identity in Wales, 1832-1886, pp. 61-62, 238, 275.