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 burgage holders

Estimated number qualified to vote:


Number of voters:

103 in 1831


1,363 (1821); 1,620 (1831)1


30 July 1830JOSEPH NEELD75
 John George Henry Pownall18
30 Apr. 1831JOSEPH NEELD96
 William Henry Fox Talbot39

Main Article

A rare example of an open burgage borough, Chippenham finally lost its struggle for independence in this period and, on the eve of the Reform Act, fell under the control of a single proprietor. Sited on the Avon, in the parish and hundred of Chippenham, the town had a ‘neat and clean’ appearance, except for the shambles. There remained a few woollen, as well as small silk and cotton, manufactures, but the traditional cloth industry was greatly depressed. Attorneys and the leading tradesmen dominated municipal affairs and the self-electing corporation, which consisted of a bailiff and 12 burgesses. The right of election was vested in the occupiers, sometimes termed ‘freemen’, of the 129 burgage tenements, though vacancy or occupation by a woman reduced the potential number of electors. The highest number of voters in any recent contest was the 126 polled in 1802.2 Elections were determined as much by agreements over property as by local issues, while national party politics played little part. The turnover of freemen was low,3 which suggests that a change of ownership did not necessarily lead to a change of tenant, voters being generally satisfied with the traditional bribes of £10, a dinner and a ball. The representation was usually divided between two main interests, with seats retailing for about £3,000 or £4,000. In 1811 John Maitland of Woodford Hall, Essex, one of the sitting Members and a partner in a large London cloth business, purchased the old Dawkins interest, which consisted of about a quarter of the burgages, for £25,000. He retired from the House in 1818, but Nathan Atherton, a Calne attorney, continued to lead the interest on his behalf. The next largest property owner in 1811 was Sir Samuel Brudenell Fludyer† of Felixstowe, Suffolk, whose father Sir Samuel, a rich clothier, and brother George had both sat for Chippenham. However, his family’s long-established interest had gradually declined and been eclipsed by that of the Guys. The clothier Henry Guy, who had supported the Fludyers in 1802, died in 1805, leaving his property, including houses in Chippenham, to his wife Olivia. Thereafter control of the second seat increasingly became identified with Anthony Guy (presumably their son), a wealthy lawyer and broker, and a leading member of the corporation, who owned about 20 burgages and returned paying guests.4 Both principals were occasionally challenged by an independent or popular interest, which opposed any tendency towards the closure of the borough. In 1818 Lord Blandford*, son of the 5th duke of Marlborough, scored a surprise success against Maitland’s candidate, John Rock Grosett*, a Jamaican planter who rented nearby Lacock Abbey, while Guy put in William Miles*, the son of a Bristol merchant.5

At the general election of 1820 Grosett stood again on Maitland’s interest and, by an electoral agreement, undertook to pay £2,000 immediately, with a further £1,000 due on the first day of the 1822 and 1823 sessions, if the Parliament lasted that long.6 Guy proposed William Alexander Madocks, the Welsh entrepreneur, seeking a less troublesome seat than Boston, in place of Miles, who withdrew. As Blandford also declined, apparently unable to bear the expense, the proprietors’ candidates were elected unopposed.7 Following town meetings, 21 Aug., 15 Nov. 1820, laudatory addresses were presented to Queen Caroline from Chippenham, where her cause was popular, by Matthew Wood* (after Grosett had declined to do so) and Madocks, who was otherwise inactive on behalf of the borough.8 Grosett, who did generally carry out his constituents’ wishes (even when, as over slavery, they conflicted with his own), presented the corporation’s petition against Catholic relief, 26 Mar. 1821. Petitions were brought up against the wool duty (by John Dugdale Astley, the county Member), 9 Apr. 1821, and the severity of Henry Hunt’s* gaol sentence (by Joseph Hume), 18 Mar. 1822.9 Grosett presented others, most of which originated at corporation meetings, for repeal of the leather tax, 22 Apr. 1822, against Catholic relief, 25 Feb. 1823, 24 Mar. 1825, for the abolition of slavery, 1 Mar. 1824, 17 Feb. 1826, and against the assessed taxes, 10 Mar. 1825.10 By mid-1824 negotiations were under way for Guy to sell his property to Madocks for £14,000, and for Maitland to transfer about 30 burgages to his nephew Ebenezer Fuller Maitland, former Member for Lostwithiel and Wallingford, at a cost of £20,000 (£15,000 down plus another £5,000 in the event of being returned, with any expenses beyond the usual £1,800 being paid out of this £5,000). Nothing came of the former scheme, but the latter was a serious proposition and caused a misunderstanding with Grosett, who, although obliged under his electoral agreement to give way in such circumstances, threatened to offer on the basis of his own popularity, if displaced. By a new agreement in November 1824 it was decided that Fuller Maitland would buy Guy’s property for £16,200 on condition that Guy allowed Grosett to be returned under his protection, at a total charge of £4,000 if the Parliament lasted into its fourth session. Fuller Maitland, who had been out of the House since 1820, could then provide himself with a seat on his own interest at the next general election.11

The plan did not, however, proceed smoothly. The conveyance of Maitland’s property was beset by legal difficulties and, for over a year, both Fuller Maitland and his London counsel, George Booth Tyndale, peppered Atherton with increasingly urgent demands for the matter to be settled before any dissolution took place.12 Atherton himself was concerned about the state of the Maitland interest, and urged the appointment of a resident agent in order to arrest its apparent decline. This was the more necessary as there were persistent rumours of another candidate emerging, such as ‘one Sir Lamb [perhaps Sir Charles Montolieu Lamb of Beauport, Sussex] and one of the Cavendish family’. Encouraged by the vicar, Joseph Allport, who had given an impetus to several of the corporation’s petitions, Alderman John Key issued an address agreeing to canvass when his duties as sheriff of London allowed. Fuller Maitland was therefore reluctantly led to counter the activities of the independent party by making charitable donations, offering dinners, undertaking canvasses, obtaining other burgages and generally trying to cultivate the borough.13 His purchase of Guy’s houses was done covertly, with final completion arranged for after the election, because, as Atherton advised, it would otherwise

give the death blow to Mr. Guy’s popularity and personal influence and might not only endanger Mr. Grosett’s return but yours. Also, for every man who has a free house of his own would consider it such a screw towards closing the borough that they would not only think themselves at liberty to fly from the promises they have given you themselves, but would use every exertion to defeat you, and if they managed well would I think very likely succeed.14

Prior to the dissolution in 1826 Fuller Maitland was asked to settle unpaid debts and provide more dinners, and he was also menaced with a petition, since the freemen, ‘having been from generation to generation accustomed to that species of bribery, consider it as quite innocent and make the demands with as much confidence as an honest man asks for a debt’. Atherton thought his position was highly delicate and urged him to concentrate on Reading, where he also had pretensions, and to leave Chippenham to his son-in-law, by whom he perhaps meant Henry Wilson† of Stowlangtoft Hall, Suffolk.15

That was no longer a serious possibility, and at the general election Fuller Maitland started with Grosett. Their opponent was not Key, who withdrew, but Frederick Gye, a London businessman and proprietor of the Vauxhall Gardens, who answered a request to offer on the independent interest with an address denouncing the prevailing corruption of the borough. With the assistance of some disaffected friends of Maitland, such as the former corporator Ralph Head Gaby, who had proposed Grosett in 1818 and 1820, Gye’s support gathered strength and Fuller Maitland was forced to match his endeavours.16 In an undated canvass book among Atherton’s papers, which listed 120 freemen (plus seven women and two void votes), the marks ‘p’ and ‘-’ were placed against 72 and 30 names respectively in the column for Fuller Maitland (with miscellaneous annotations against a further 17); ‘-’ was entered against 96 names for Grosett; and there were five marked ‘-’ and 25 marked ‘qu’ for Gye. All 11 of the members of the corporation listed had marks against their names in the columns for Fuller Maitland and Grosett, but three were also marked ‘qu’ for Gye: namely, William Pope, a linen draper, William Colborne, a surgeon, and Christopher Heath, the agent who had broken with Maitland in 1818 to introduce Blandford.17 Having resisted demands for treating, Gye greatly enhanced his chances by a signal act of opportunism. He began to provide raw wool for the empty factories and to procure orders for their finished goods, thereby rescuing the town’s principal employment from stagnation and its inhabitants from paupery. In expectation of future largesse, a deputation asked Grosett to stand aside in Gye’s favour. He and Guy graciously accepted defeat, and Grosett withdrew by an address, 7 June 1826.18

On the hustings, Fuller Maitland was proposed by James Morris Coombs, a corporator, while Heath introduced Gye. Both candidates promised to try to improve the town’s prosperity and claimed to be unfettered. Recognizing that the peace of the borough had only just been preserved, Atherton offered a truce by stating that ‘burgage tenures were a property that Mr. M. had no desire to increase, and a holding of which he should never avail himself, unless he found others availing themselves of their power and influence on the opposite side’. Gye, duly elected with Fuller Maitland, was honoured for having reasserted the independence of the borough.19 He fulfilled his promise to keep the factories employed, which he reiterated on a visit in May 1827, though in 1829 there were again considerable redundancies.20 He presented petitions from Chippenham for repeal of the Test Acts, 7 June 1827, 22 Feb. 1828, and one against Catholic relief was brought up, 12 Feb. 1829.21 Fuller Maitland, who like Gye was inactive in the House, baulked at some of his expenses and at the idea of paying for regular dinners, but expressed himself satisfied with the electoral work done by Atherton, who nevertheless resigned his agency in 1828.22 Neither Member did much more to cultivate the borough, which in any case fell under the sway of Joseph Neeld, a London attorney who inherited a fortune in 1827. He purchased a large estate at neighbouring Grittleton in 1828 and began to buy property in Chippenham from both patrons. Apart from the obvious financial gain, Fuller Maitland’s motives for selling were unclear, especially as, defeated at Abingdon, he left the House in 1830. Guy, however, was forced to sell because his huge liabilities caught up with him in December 1829, when he was declared bankrupt. His resignation as bailiff was accepted, 21 May 1830, and he was said to have become a ‘dead letter’ in Chippenham.23 According to one of Neeld’s rentals,24 he purchased 42 houses from Fuller Maitland (of which 27 were burgages), 31 from Guy (28), and 11 from other owners (6), leaving him with 61, or about half the burgages. This substantial stake in the borough was thought to have given him a controlling interest over both seats.25 He entered the House for Gatton in early 1830 but canvassed Chippenham on his own interest at the general election later that year, in conjunction with Philip Pusey, Member for Rye (while the latter’s friend Lord Porchester*, son of the 2nd earl of Carnarvon, expressed mortification at losing his chance there).26

However, Neeld’s hegemony was disputed by the independent interest. The young Thomas Gladstone*, who briefly flirted with it, reported to his father John Gladstone* that there were at most 90 eligible burgage votes, that a private canvass by the popular party had secured 35 promises, and that Gye, who was forced to withdraw and subsequently lost a contest at Berwick, could give them another three.27 He added that the ‘principal actor, a tradesman in the popular party’ (perhaps Pope) had evidence that Neeld had bribed a doubtful voter with £25. Gladstone went on to say that according to the opinion of his London counsel, Henry Alworth Merewether, whose family came from Castlefield, this put Neeld

entirely in his power. If so, of course N. would be too glad to compromise the second seat to secure his own. But even failing this, he thinks a contest would probably terminate against the proprietor ... He says the election never lasts above a day and a half when contested ... [He] thinks the expense would not exceed £500. There he must be under the mark.

He had also been told that a third entrant would certainly succeed because ‘few of the householders will split for N.’s second candidate, on account of their indignation at his attempt to close the seat’, though Gladstone himself did ‘not rely much on their indignation standing the test of his full purse’. One handbill did complain that disfranchisement would occur not by statute but by the ‘orders of the patron’, and another opined that the freemen were muzzled, but nothing came of Gladstone’s candidacy, nor of the rumoured appearance of one Wilkins of Tiverton.28 The eventual independent challenge came from John George Henry Pownall of Spring Grove, Hounslow, Middlesex.

Neeld forwarded the corporation’s customary address to the new king, but in a letter to the bailiff, 26 July 1830, he admitted that ill health prevented him from giving Chippenham his full attention.29 He nevertheless attended the election, when he was proposed by Coombs and seconded by Colborne, while another corporator, William Gale, nominated Pusey. Both candidates declared themselves to be supporters of the Wellington government, and were given a hostile reception, though Pusey made the best of the merriment over his name (‘he alluded to Pussy - a cat having been paraded about the town the day previous’). Pownall, who was introduced by Pope, and spoke against excessive taxation, slavery and the game laws, withdrew after 77 freemen had been polled, and Neeld and Pusey were declared elected.30 According to the poll given in the corporation minute book,31 Pusey received all his 57 votes in splits with Neeld (76 per cent of Neeld’s total votes), who also had 16 splits with Pownall (21 per cent); and Neeld and Pownall received two plumpers each. Of the 28 freemen who were admitted in June and July 1830, 17 split for Neeld and Pusey, one for Neeld and Pownall and ten did not vote. No doubt most of Neeld’s tenants voted for him: for example, of the 23 male tenants listed on a rental in 1829,32 12 split for him and Pusey, and 11 did not vote. Of the ten corporators who voted, only Pope split for Neeld and Pownall, while nine (including Colborne and Gale) split for the patron’s choice of candidates. With only slight inaccuracy, Lord Mahon, who had been returned for Wootton Bassett, congratulated Pusey on his success, which he thought had taken place ‘almost as quietly as mine’. Again, nothing came of the threatened petition.33 Chippenham petitions against slavery were presented, 4, 22 Nov. 1830, 25 Mar. 1831.34 Another from Chippenham, Grittleton and Castle Combe in favour of the ballot was brought up by Daniel O’Connell, in the absence of Blandford, 26 Feb. Chippenham, whose parish had a population of 3,506 in 1821, was scheduled to lose one seat under the Grey ministry’s reform bill, and following a well-attended meeting, 3 Mar., the town’s petition in its favour was brought up by Neeld, 11 Mar.35 Both he and Pusey voted against it, 22 Mar., 19 Apr. 1831, which aroused the ire of the popular party, though Neeld was considered secure because he had subscribed to all the charities and spent much money in the town.36

Neeld offered again at the dissolution and, although he may have thought of one of the Ashley Coopers, his wife’s brothers, he evidently intended the second seat for another brother-in-law, the army officer Henry George Boldero. Pusey, who unsuccessfully attempted to regain Rye and had to resort to a seat for Cashel, surprisingly had to withdraw; perhaps he chose to be with his wife, who was ill, as Mahon wrote to him, 1 Jan. 1832, in relation to the Chippenham voters, that ‘it appears from their message at the late dissolution "that they would have elected you had you stood, even though you had remained in London".’37 Pownall was urged to start again, but he declined to prejudice the chances of two influential local candidates. The geologist George Julius Poulett Scrope† of Castle Combe, the brother of the vice-president of the board of trade Charles Poulett Thomson*, issued several long and vituperative reform addresses and canvassed for a few days, but having only obtained four promises he withdrew. William Henry Fox Talbot† of Lacock Abbey, another reformer, was therefore left as the sole independent candidate.38 Both Neeld (proposed by Coombs) and Boldero (introduced by Henry Goldney of Rowden House) were represented as moderate reformers, but only Fox Talbot (nominated by his agent West Awdry, a local attorney) spoke in favour of the bill. After a contest in which 103 freemen were polled, Fox Talbot resigned with a respectable number of votes, and Neeld and Boldero were elected.39 The standing of the independent party was diminished by an internal quarrel, which Pownall complained had cost him the seat. He had been led to believe that his position was hopeless, only then to find the ‘influence of the two gentlemen [Poulett Scrope and Fox Talbot] absolutely nothing. Mr. T. I think had not a vote except from my party’.40 Fox Talbot was, however, presented with a silver snuff box for his endeavours.41

On Awdry’s motion at a meeting in Chippenham, 13 July 1831, a petition was adopted against the borough’s being again placed in schedule B in the reintroduced reform bill. It argued that the 1821 census had omitted 155 properties from the total of 600 houses given for the parish and that, taken in proportion, the population must have been over 4,000 and therefore above the threshold for partial disfranchisement.42 It was presented by John Benett, the other county Member, 18 July, and Boldero employed exactly the same argument when moving to postpone consideration of the case, 27 July. He also pointed out that Chippenham was larger than its neighbour Calne, the cabinet minister Lord Lansdowne’s pocket borough, which was due to retain two Members, and that its boundaries could easily be extended to include the surrounding villages. Though criticized over his calculations, he was supported by several Tories, including the former Members Sir Robert Peel and Pusey, who both demanded that the matter should be referred to a select committee. Benett correctly pointed out that there was an error in the census and Astley spoke of the borough’s respectability. Ministers, however, were determined to prevent a precedent which might delay progress on the disfranchisement clauses and defeated the amendment by 251-181. Both Members of course voted for it, and against the bill in the major divisions. A Chippenham petition in favour of the extension of poor laws to Ireland was presented by Benett, 30 Aug.43 It was thought improper to ground any argument on the census, and a large and enthusiastic meeting in Chippenham, 24 Sept., instead agreed a general reform petition to the Lords, which was brought up by Lansdowne, 4 Oct. Another meeting, 15 Oct. 1831, approved an address to the king calling on him to retain his ministers.44

Ranked 89th in the new scale of boroughs, based on the number of houses and amount of assessed taxes, Chippenham just escaped any disfranchisement and was removed from schedule B in the revised reform bill. Its boundaries were extended to include the rest of Chippenham parish, the parishes of Langley Burrell and Hardenhuish, and the Vale of Pewsham, which increased its size from 0.1 to 16.1 square miles. On this basis, its population was 5,270 (of which the parish accounted for 4,333), its taxes were assessed at more than £1,500, and it contained 883 houses, of which 319 were valued at £10 or over (though there were only 208 registered electors at the 1832 general election).45 The passage of the bill was celebrated by a public dinner, 22 Aug. 1832.46 Boldero was thanked for his opposition to disfranchisement by the presentation of a silver cup, but he prudently withdrew before the dissolution in late 1832, when Fox Talbot and John Thomas Mayne of Teffont House, near Hindon, both offered as reformers. The electors were said to be ‘too sensible of the obligations they are under to Mr. Neeld to drive him from the town’, and with his still extensive influence, he was elected with Fox Talbot, who became one of the pioneers of photography.47 The Reform Act, in fact, did almost nothing to alter the newly closed nature of the borough. Neeld continued to sit until his death in 1856, and from 1835 he returned Boldero (who retired in 1859), another Conservative, for the other seat.

Author: Stephen Farrell


  • 1. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 414, gives the population of the parish, not of the borough, in 1801.
  • 2. Pigot’s Commercial Dir. (1830), 794; PP (1831-2), xl. 99-101; (1833), xxxvii. 694, 695; (1835), xxiv. 585-7, 590.
  • 3. Admissions of freemen are given in the corporation minute books, which are divided between Wilts. RO (Chippenham borough recs. G19/1) and Chippenham Town Hall, and are partially printed in F. H. Goldney, Recs. of Chippenham (1889). The list of admissions in Wilts. RO, Creswick mss 137/124 is mostly accurate; the ‘roll of freemen’ at G19/1/16/1 is defective.
  • 4. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 415, 416, mistakenly continues to identify ‘Guy’ as Henry instead of Anthony Guy.
  • 5. Chippenham borough recs. G19/1/30, ‘Chippenham, its constitution’, Nov. 1811; Wilts. RO, Bevir mss 1171/9, 10, 15, 16, 21; Wilts. RO, Ross mss 1769/47, 51; Oldfield, Key (1820), 29-31; PROB 11/1430/588.
  • 6. Bevir mss 9, electoral agreement, ‘Grosset’ [n.d.].
  • 7. NLW, Porthmadoc mss 290; Salisbury Jnl. 20 Mar. 1820; Devizes Gazette, 28 July 1825.
  • 8. Salisbury Jnl. 28 Aug.; Add. 51686, Lansdowne to Holland, 19 Nov. 1820; Devizes Mus. Cuttings, xii. 30, 31; J. A. Chamberlain, Chippenham, 111.
  • 9. Goldney, 135-7; CJ, lxxvi. 203, 245; lxxvii. 118; The Times, 27 Mar., 10 Apr. 1821.
  • 10. Goldney, 138-44; CJ, lxxvii. 193; lxxviii. 67; lxxix. 110; lxxx. 183, 258; lxxxi. 75; Devizes Gazette, 25 Apr. 1822; The Times, 26 Feb. 1823, 2 Mar. 1824, 11, 25 Mar. 1825, 18 Feb. 1826.
  • 11. Bevir mss 9, ‘Mem. in London’, May, Tyndale to Atherton, 10 July, ‘Mem. of agreement between Maitland and Fuller Maitland’, 21 Aug., ‘Mem. relative to purchase of Mr. Guy’, Nov., electoral agreement, 12 Nov.; 1171/15, ‘Some Mems. on treating with Mr. Fuller Maitland’, June 1824.
  • 12. Ibid. 9.
  • 13. Ibid. Atherton to Fuller Maitland, Oct. 1824, 7 Apr. 1825, to Pinniger, 18 Nov., Guy to Atherton, Nov., Fuller Maitland to same, 13 Dec. 1824, 10 May, [n.d.], N. Atherton jnr. to same, 13 May, Head to same [n.d.], Fuller Maitland’s address, 28 May, Key’s address, 7 June 1825; Devizes Gazette, 16 Dec. 1824, 28 July; Salisbury Jnl. 6 June, 17 Oct. 1825.
  • 14. Bevir mss 9, Atherton to Fuller Maitland, 7, 18 Jan., 5 Feb., reply, 4 Feb. 1826.
  • 15. Ibid. Hussey to Atherton, 16, 18 Feb., Atherton to Fuller Maitland, 19, 20, 29 Mar. 1826.
  • 16. Ibid. Key’s address, 7 Feb., Gye’s address, 25 Mar., Fuller Maitland to Atherton, 27 Apr., reply, 8 May; Keenes’ Bath Jnl. 27 Feb., 3, 24 Apr.; The Times, 25 Mar. 1826.
  • 17. Bevir mss 9.
  • 18. Ibid. Hussey to Atherton, 21, 29 May; Devizes Gazette, 27 Apr., 1, 8, 15 June, 26 Oct.; The Times, 3 June 1826.
  • 19. Devizes Gazette, 15 June; Bath Gazette, 20 June 1826.
  • 20. Devizes Gazette, 3 Aug., 26 Oct. 1826, 31 May 1827; Keenes’ Bath Jnl. 30 Oct. 1826, 14 Sept. 1829.
  • 21. CJ, lxxxii. 527; lxxxiii. 96; lxxxiv. 24; The Times, 8 June 1827.
  • 22. Bevir mss 9, Fuller Maitland to Atherton, 7 Aug. 1826, 4 May 1827, 9 Apr., replies, 6 Mar., 2 May 1828.
  • 23. Add. 51687, Lansdowne to Holland, 4 Dec.; The Times, 26 Dec. 1829; Goldney, 146; Wilts. RO, Keary mss 415/53; 432, Humphrys to Edwards, 3 July 1830; 443.
  • 24. Wilts. RO, Neeld mss 1305/320.
  • 25. Ibid. 45-77, 319; Ross mss 52; Keary mss 272; The Times, 11 Aug. 1831.
  • 26. Fox Talbot Mus. (Lacock), Fox Talbot mss, Pusey to Fox Talbot [n.d.]; Devizes Gazette, 1 July; Cent. Kent. Stud. Stanhope mss U1590 C353, Porchester to Mahon, 17 Aug. 1830.
  • 27. Chippenham borough recs. G19/1/43, Gye’s address.
  • 28. St. Deiniol’s Lib. Glynne-Gladstone mss 195, T. to J. Gladstone, 26, 28, 29 June; Keary mss 432, Humphrys to Edwards, 3 July, ‘Disfranchisement of Chippenham’, 17 July 1830; Wilts. RO 740/49.
  • 29. Goldney, 147, 322; Chippenham borough recs. G19/1/38.
  • 30. Keenes’ Bath Jnl. 2 Aug., 20 Sept.; Devizes Gazette, 5 Aug., 9 Sept. 1830.
  • 31. At Chippenham Town Hall. It gives totals of 76, 58 and 18 votes for Neeld, Pusey and Pownall respectively, as in the return, but the actual numbers of names listed are 75, 57 and 18.
  • 32. Ross mss 52.
  • 33. Berks. RO, Pusey mss D/EBp C1/15.
  • 34. Goldney, 148; CJ, lxxxvi. 35, 126, 436.
  • 35. Goldney, 150, 151; CJ, lxxxvi. 310, 367; The Times, 28 Feb.; Keenes’ Bath Jnl. 7 Mar. 1831.
  • 36. Fox Talbot mss ?Lady Fox Talbot to Fox Talbot, 24 Mar. [1831].
  • 37. Hants RO, Carnarvon mss 75M91/L3, Howard to Lady Porchester, 4 May 1831; L14/12; Pusey mss C1/1.
  • 38. Salisbury Jnl. 4 Apr., 2 May; Devizes Gazette, 28 Apr. 1831; Wilts. RO 212A/36/18; 1959/5, p. 4; Duke Univ. Lib. Neeld mss, addresses.
  • 39. Bath Gazette, 3 May; Devizes Gazette, 5 May 1831; PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 513.
  • 40. Keary mss 432, Sadler to Pownall, 12 May, 16 June; reply, 30 June 1831.
  • 41. Devizes Gazette, 16 June 1831.
  • 42. Chippenham borough recs. G19/1/13; Goldney, 153-5; CJ, lxxxvi. 670, 671; Add. 38050, f. 30.
  • 43. Goldney, 152, 153; CJ, lxxxvi. 798.
  • 44. Fox Talbot mss, Awdry to Fox Talbot, 24 Sept.; Goldney, 156-8; Devizes Gazette, 29 Sept., 20 Oct.; The Times, 5 Oct. 1831; LJ, lxiii. 1047.
  • 45. N. Gash, Politics in Age of Peel, 432; J. Cannon, Parliamentary Reform, 223; PP (1831), xvi. 101, 273; (1831-2), xxxvi. 70, 203, 309; xxxvii. 25-27; xl. 99- 101; (1835), xxiv. 585, 590.
  • 46. Devizes Gazette, 23 Aug. 1832.
  • 47. Ibid. 15 Mar., 7 June, 13 Dec.; Keenes’ Bath Jnl. 12 Nov. 1832.