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 corporation

Estimated number qualified to vote:

at least 36

Number of voters:

25 in 1820


4,208 (1821); 4,562 (1831)


 Wadham Locke7
1 Mar. 1826GEORGE WATSON TAYLOR vice Estcourt, vacated his seat 
9 June 1826JOHN PEARSE 
2 Aug. 1830JOHN PEARSE 
4 May 1831JOHN PEARSE 

Main Article

By the early nineteenth century the corporation of Devizes had established the practice of returning Tory, mostly local, landed gentlemen, who, by invitation, inheritance or purchase, had displaced the wealthy clothier representatives.1 Comprising the parishes of St. John the Baptist and St. Mary the Virgin, and (by convention) the area known as Old Park, the borough was the principal town in the county’s northern division.2 It boasted its own newspaper, the Devizes and Wiltshire Gazette, established by the printer George Simpson in July 1819, which adopted a moderately pro-ministerial stance.3 The town was prosperous, but, the traditional woollen cloth industry having declined almost to extinction, manufacturers had diversified into the production of silks, like Robert Waylen and Peter Walker of Belvedere, and of tobacco and snuff, like Benjamin and Paul Anstie.4 Attorneys, bankers and the leading retailers sat on the corporation, whose constitution was disputed.5 It consisted of 12 capital burgesses councillors, including the mayor, recorder and justice; 24 capital burgesses; and an indefinite number of free burgesses. The last group, once large in size, had been excluded from the management of municipal affairs and the parliamentary franchise, so that elections of free burgesses were carried out purely as a preliminary to filling vacancies among the capital burgesses. In 1818 the only free burgesses were Joshua Smith of nearby Erlestoke Park, one of the Members, and Captain Joseph Needham Taylor of Bellevue House, who had been elected in 1816 in recognition of his naval services. Whether or not they were technically entitled to do so, free burgesses did attend meetings of the corporation and apparently could vote in parliamentary elections. To all intents and purposes, however, corporate powers, including the franchise, were exercised by a common council of the capital burgesses councillors and capital burgesses. One of these, Henry Addington, the town’s recorder since 1784 and a former Member, had been elevated to the peerage as Viscount Sidmouth in 1805. Unfilled vacancies and non-residence accounted for the number of electors being in practice lower than 36.6

The borough was managed by its deputy recorder, the attorney and banker William Salmon of Southbroom House, whose son, William Wroughton Salmon, another lawyer and capital burgess, was town clerk, county treasurer and a stamp distributor.7 Of the two, it was increasingly the son who took responsibility for administering most of the borough’s business affairs and who endeavoured to maintain the cordial and mutually beneficial relationship between corporators and Members, who were all of an ‘independently ministerial’ character, for instance at the annual dinners of the Bear Club charity.8 Yet his elderly father still had a good deal of influence, as he showed at the general election of 1818, when he introduced a stranger, the Bank director and army clothier John Pearse of Chilton Lodge, Berkshire, to replace Smith, who retired (and died in 1819).9 The other sitting Member was Thomas Grimston Estcourt, the borough’s justice, who had succeeded his father-in-law, the clothier and former Member James Sutton, to the neighbouring estate of New Park in 1801. His political conduct was guided by his uncle, Sidmouth, home secretary in Lord Liverpool’s ministry, whose seat at Devizes he had taken over in 1805; in a reference to his father, the society physician Anthony Addington, it was known as ‘the Doctor’s Gallipot’. Estcourt’s return was attributed either to his own influence or to that of Sidmouth, who was sometimes alleged to be the patron of both seats and to have sold them for a high price.10 In 1818, in the first contest since 1765, Pearse and Estcourt were opposed by a member of a well-established local family, the banker Wadham Locke of Rowdeford House, who offered as a reformer, with the support of an embryonic independent party, which included Waylen and the Ansties.11 It must have been William Salmon senior who stood as a precaution, since his son would have been debarred by his revenue office. The poll, taken from the papers of John Bayly, a Devizes attorney and corporator, was later printed.12 According to this list, of the 27 electors who polled, 25 voted for Estcourt (consisting of one plumper, and 11 splitters with Pearse, nine with Salmon and four with Locke), 13 for Pearse (including one splitter each with Salmon and Locke), and ten for Salmon. Locke received only five votes, including those of his proposer George Sloper, a baker, his seconder Robert Herbert Brabant, a physician, and his partner William Hughes, who split for him and Pearse.13 Thereafter Estcourt and Pearse, despite pursuing their own concerns, were active on behalf of the constituency.

Locke stood against them again at the general election of 1820, ‘with a considerable accession of strength’, and it was thought that the ‘decided preference given to his pretensions by the inhabitants in general of the town and neighbourhood, can leave little doubt of his ultimate success’.14 Estcourt’s mother wrote to him, 26 Feb., to express her wish that

let it turn out as it may, I trust you will experience no mortification ... You have laboured hard to serve them, from the purest motives, many years, and should you judge it advisable to retire, I trust you will be amply compensated by the leisure time you will gain.15

The corporation condemned the late delivery by the undersheriff of the writ, 4 Mar. Estcourt was proposed by James Gent, a brewer (who had nominated Pearse in 1818), and John Tylee of Broadleas, a brewer and banker (who had nominated him and Salmon in 1818). Pearse was nominated by Henry Butcher, a woollen draper, and John Singleton Clark, a chemist. Locke was proposed by Sloper, and seconded by Brabant, who launched into an attack on Pearse’s dependence on the ministry. Sidmouth commented ironically to Estcourt, 18 Mar., that ‘I have not yet seen Pearse, to congratulate him on the compliments he received from Mr. Brabant. They were enough to turn his head’. The sitting Members stressed their honourable conduct in the House and disinterested application to local business, while Locke protested that if returned ‘you shall find at least equal independence and equal zeal to serve you, both publicly and privately, on my part’. According to the pencil annotations in the minute book, of the 25 electors who polled, 22 voted for Estcourt (consisting of one plumper and 15 splitters with Pearse and six with Locke), and 17 for Pearse (including Estcourt and Taylor’s plumpers). Locke, who received seven votes (including Hughes’s plumper), was again defeated.16

The absence of the recorder and his deputy from the meeting for swearing in the new mayor, Hughes, 29 Sept. 1820, led James Tilby, ‘a busy solicitor’ of the town, to argue that the election was invalid and that the borough charter had been forfeited. He even prepared an address to the king against its renewal, which was ‘eagerly signed by the radicals, etc.’, but ‘he and his crew’ were ridiculed when it was shown that no irregularity had in fact occurred.17 In November illuminations to celebrate the acquittal of Queen Caroline were displayed in many houses, including those of Benjamin Anstie, Sloper, Waylen and Jasper Cox, a linen and woollen draper. Hughes refused a requisition for a town meeting, but an address was numerously signed. The corporation agreed a loyal address to the king, 2 Dec. 1820, which was to be presented by Sidmouth, one of the queen’s chief persecutors. Later that month Cox presented her with the town’s congratulatory address, when she is said to have exclaimed pointedly, ‘Oh! This is my Lord Sidmouth’s borough, is it!’18 Estcourt brought up a Devizes petition for restoring her name to the liturgy, 24 Jan. 1821, but, as Robert Gordon pointed out, he signally failed to endorse it, while Pearse spoke against it. Devizes opinion remained strongly divided on the affair.19 Petitions from its inhabitants were presented against the ill treatment of cattle by Pearse, 14 June 1821, and for criminal law reform by Estcourt, 23 May 1822. Pearse also brought up one from the licensed publicans and victuallers against the beer bill, 18 July 1822, and during the rest of that Parliament they each lodged several more from local manufacturers for reduction of the tobacco duties and relief of the silk trade. Bucknall Estcourt (as Estcourt had become) presented a petition, headed by Locke’s name, for the abolition of colonial slavery, 11 Mar., and another for inquiry into the trial of the Methodist missionary John Smith in Demerara, 1 June 1824.20

He brought up the inhabitants’ anti-Catholic petition in the Commons, 18 Feb. 1825, as did Sidmouth in the Lords, 26 Feb. Sir John Dugdale Astley, the county Member, presented a petition from the vicinity of Devizes against alteration of the corn laws, 28 Apr.21 Because the town remained ‘the most dirty and uninviting, both to residents and strangers, that can well be imagined’, it was decided that Salmon and the Members, who both contributed £1,000 towards its expenses, would sponsor a paving and lighting bill, which duly passed that session.22 When only 14 members of the corporation were present at the election of a new mayor, 27 May, doubts were raised as to whether a simple majority of 19 did not have to attend for the meeting to be quorate. Under threat of legal action, notice was later given that the 11 vacancies then existing would be filled up. An election took place, 1 Aug., but despite the efforts taken to ensure a quorum, only 18 attended because four corporators (Thomas Biggs, a grocer and tea dealer, Brabant, Hughes, and John North, a linen and woollen draper), who wanted Locke added to the mayor’s list of 11 nominees, absented themselves. Fears that the same four would refuse to attend for the election of Tylee as mayor, 23 Sept., in case the chance was taken to elect the 11, were not fulfilled, but Sidmouth, who did not usually attend such meetings, admonished them for causing such inconvenience. It was on his advice that the same 11 men were put up again, 8 Oct. 1825, when 19 corporators attended and the recalcitrants acquiesced in the election.23 Early the next year Tylee refused a requisition for a meeting to consider petitioning Parliament against colonial slavery.24

In February 1826 Bucknall Estcourt resigned his seat in order to transfer to Oxford University, a decision which was greeted with mixed feelings of regret and pride by the corporation. George Watson Taylor immediately offered on the basis of his conduct as an anti-Catholic and ministerialist. The heir to a West Indian fortune, he had purchased Erlestoke in 1819, had taken care to establish a strong connection with the corporation and had Bucknall Estcourt’s support.25 Locke also started, but withdrew by a bitter address, in which, blaming his friends for abandoning him, he expressed his disappointment at failing to emancipate the town ‘from a thraldom which has long degraded it’. Proposed by Gent and Henry Bayntun of Browfort House, rector of Bromham, Watson Taylor was elected unopposed, 1 Mar., and promised, like his predecessor, to do all he could to promote the interests of the borough. The prevailing non-partisan spirit was ably caught by the poet Tom Moore of Sloperton Cottage, whose speech on the decline of differences between Whigs and Tories at the election dinner that night was highly applauded.26 Watson Taylor consolidated his popularity by repeating his former contribution of £500 to the cost of the town’s improvements.27 He stood with Pearse at the general election later that year, before which they and Bucknall Estcourt took part in a theatrical procession organized by Captain Taylor. Both Pearse, who was nominated by Gent and Butcher, and Watson Taylor, who was proposed by Bucknall Estcourt and Clark, stressed the correctness of their conduct. Apparently every member of the corporation was present, except for Brabant, and all voted for the two candidates, who were duly returned. The expressions of mutual admiration continued at the post-election dinner.28

Salmon died on 12 Oct. 1826 and his influence appears to have been entirely taken over by his son, to whom the corporation voted an address of condolence, 23 Jan. 1827. The Members were elected free burgesses that day (being sworn on 4 June) and Bucknall Estcourt’s eldest son, Thomas Henry Sutton Bucknall Estcourt*, was elected a capital burgess (though he did not attend to take the oaths until 30 May 1828).29 In November 1827 Tilby failed in his attempt to overturn the election of the 11 capital burgesses, when king’s bench ruled at a preliminary stage that the quorum at corporation meetings was 19 (a simple majority of the 36 corporators), not, as Tilby contended, 20 (seven plus 13, the sum of the simple majorities of the 12 capital burgesses councillors and the 24 capital burgesses).30 On 6 June 1828 the mayor, William Everett, a grocer and tea dealer, and Salmon nominated the Rev. Alfred Smith of Old Park, and Robert Reynolds, a currier, to fill the vacancies for two capital burgesses. Flouting convention, Thomas Scott of Park Cottage and Brabant proposed another candidate, the surgeon Charles Sylvester, while the name of a fourth (put up by Hughes and Biggs) was withdrawn. Smith and Sylvester were elected with 18 and 15 votes respectively. Reynolds received votes from only 11 of the 22 corporators polled, the other 11 splitting for the two winning candidates and so ensuring his defeat. On 11 Aug. 1828 Bucknall Estcourt senior was elected recorder in succession to Sidmouth, who retired (and was then made a free burgess), and his son took his place as a capital burgess councillor and justice. Later that year Tilby made an unavailing attempt to force the Kennet and Avon Canal Company to honour its contractual obligations to supply Devizes with water.31 Petitions from the Protestant Dissenters for repeal of the Test Acts were presented by the Members, 30 May, 13 June 1827, 18, 25 Feb. 1828.32 Others from tradesmen and local farmers against the withdrawal of £1 notes were brought up by Pearse and John Benett, the county Member, 2, 3 June. The petition agreed at an anti-slavery meeting chaired by Locke, 18 June, was presented by Benett, 3 July 1828.33 Although the Members and corporators remained firmly anti-Catholic, opinion in the town was said to favour emancipation, but no petitions on the issue were apparently forthcoming during 1829.34 The vestry of St. Mary’s agreed a petition against the poor rates, 19 Feb., which was presented, 16 Mar., by Pearse, who also brought up one for lower tobacco duties from the manufacturers of tobacco and snuff, 14 May 1830.35

The sitting Members were not thought to be in any danger at the general election that summer. Pearse, proposed by Hughes and Stephen Neate of Aldbourn, spoke of the renewed unanimity among the corporators and praised them for choosing only independent men, with whom they were ‘in the habit of frequent personal intercourse’. Watson Taylor, proposed by Bucknall Estcourt junior and Tylee, echoed Pearse’s sentiments, and like him gave his general support to the Wellington ministry, against which they had both voted over Catholic emancipation. Thirty corporators were present, including three of the four free burgesses (the Members themselves and Taylor), which is why the next mayor, Bayly, in his reply to the home office circular, 1 Jan. 1831, reported that the largest number of voters polled in the last 30 years had been the 30 then in attendance.36 Neither the corporation minutes nor the main newspaper report name Locke and Salmon as having been opposing candidates, though some later accounts mention them.37 Bayntun’s son, Samuel Adlam Bayntun, who had been a capital burgess since 1825, was returned for York after a contest. A large anti-slavery meeting was held in Devizes, 17 Sept. 1830, and its petition was presented to the House by Benett, 3 Nov., while others from the town were brought up, 15 Dec. 1830, 25 Mar. 1831.38 There were agricultural disturbances in the neighbourhood during the autumn of 1830, and the militia was employed to protect property. The former Member Bucknall Estcourt was active among the local magistrates, and he said that their recommendation that farmers should raise wages to 10s. a week could not be enforced.39 Bayly refused the requisition for a meeting on parliamentary reform, but one was held regardless, 2 Feb., under the chairmanship of Waylen, after Locke had declined this honour. Many speeches were made in favour of an extensive measure and emphasizing local grievances, namely that there were only 36 electors, of whom 15 were non-resident, and that there were very few free burgesses in comparison to the almost 900 rate payers. The petition in favour of reform and retrenchment was presented by William Pole Tylney Long Wellesley, 28 Feb. Others from the town and its vicinity, where reform sentiment was strong, were brought up in the Commons by Benett, 21 Feb., 9, 18 Mar., and in the Lords by Lord Lansdowne, the lord lieutenant, 25 Feb. 1831.40

Salmon, in a letter to Bucknall Estcourt, 11 Mar. 1831, wrote that

some of our corporate brethren are beginning to be anxious as to the line of conduct which they should follow - using the old adage ‘it is of no use to kick against the pricks’. And one cannot wonder at persons who may suffer by unpopularity, being a little timid. For my own part, I regret that the late ministry were so obstinate in refusal of all reform - a very little part of what is now done would have satisfied the people in 1830. I believe the Dissenters here would have infinitely preferred a higher qualification, or a more compulsory admission of free burgesses, but they are afraid to say a word against the ten pounders.

Writing again, 17 Mar., he commented that several corporators were expressing themselves favourable to some measure of ‘rational reform’ and added that there would be an illumination if the Grey ministry’s reform bill passed its second reading, ‘about which no one here will allow a doubt, for I am almost ashamed to say 50 to 1 are in favour of it’. Three days later he pointed out that Scott and Brabant had signed a ‘petition for the bill, because they despaired of seeing any other petition got up, and were anxious to [query afraid not to?] appear willing to concede a little to public opinion’. Henry Headley of Old Park Cottage, a physician, was among those who had joined them, ‘being, as Bayly says, "Scott-bitten".’41 It was on the motion of Bucknall Estcourt’s son, 4 Apr., that the corporation agreed to petition against the bill, to which Brabant, Headley, Hughes and Scott objected, and it was he who prepared the draft which was approved by all those present, 8 Apr. It was brought up in the House, 18 Apr. 1831, by Pearse, who, with his current and former colleagues, defended the electoral purity of Devizes. However, Long Wellesley argued that, as Bayntun confirmed, the petition did not represent the opinion of all the members of the corporation, still less of the inhabitants. He also claimed that Sidmouth was thought to be the patron and alleged that Pearse had given ‘forty thousand very good reasons for the security of his seat’.42

According to Salmon, the chances of Bucknall Estcourt transferring successfully from Marlborough had declined markedly because of the furore over reform. He also believed that Locke would come in if Pearse retired on account of old age or ill health, and that Watson Taylor was to be the other Member ‘if he behaves well’.43 Answering a requisition to stand, 29 Mar. 1831, Locke did agree to offer once the franchise had been extended. Though they had some supporters, the sitting Members were castigated for their votes against the reform bill, their dramatic loss of popularity being attributed solely to this cause. However, following the sudden dissolution in April, Locke did not come forward, and Bayntun, a supporter of the bill, also declined to accept an invitation to stand, so they were considered safe.44 A meeting to address the king and ministers in favour of reform was held on 2 May, when Locke, in the chair, was one of the many speakers to praise the bill and the king’s decision to allow a dissolution. Also notable was the striking panegyric on William IV and reform which was delivered by Lieutenant-Colonel William Francis Patrick Napier of Battle House, Bromham, the third volume of whose History of the War in the Peninsula was published that year. Charles Lewis Phipps of Wans House announced the establishment of a subscription for returning reformers in neighbouring counties, which was to be managed by Locke, Scott and Waylen.45 Brabant, Hughes and Scott resigned from the corporation immediately before the election, which took place three days later. Pearse, nominated by Neate and Tylee, and Watson Taylor, nominated by Bucknall Estcourt junior and Butcher, each justified their conduct at length and advocated only moderate reform. Bayntun spoke for many when, despite clashing with Watson Taylor and Pearse, he praised their public and private virtues, but excoriated them for failing to support the reform bill, for which he had himself consistently voted. The only other opposition came from Taylor, who urged the adoption of a rate payer franchise and the ballot, and the sitting Members were again returned unopposed.46 They and many of the corporators signed the Wiltshire declaration against reform.47

A town meeting was held for the purpose of raising a subscription for the Irish poor, 11 June, and Locke chaired the annual meeting of the Wiltshire Anti-Slavery Society in Devizes, 16 Sept. 1831.48 A gathering, chaired by Waylen, was held there, 30 Sept., prior to the county meeting that day, to petition the Lords against throwing out the reform bill. Locke denied that public opinion had turned against reform, and was supported by Napier, who argued that the Whigs had not gone far enough. Duncombe Pleydell Bouverie* distanced himself from such sentiments and proposed the petition, in which other speakers concurred. It was presented by Lansdowne, 4 Oct. 1831, and, following the bill’s defeat a few days later, an address to the king was prepared.49 A Devizes petition for repeal of the malt duties was brought up by Benett, 9 Apr. 1832. A well-attended meeting of reformers, summoned by Locke, 15 May, approved an address to Lord Grey and his ministers in praise of their conduct, and another to William IV asking for their reinstatement. On the motion of Montague Gore of Tilehurst Lodge, Berkshire, a petition to the Commons was agreed requesting that supplies be withheld until the bill was passed, and this was presented by Benett, 18 May.50 Divided over whether to organize illuminations to mark its passage, the reformers agreed to hold a festival to celebrate the success of reform, which took place in August. Under the Boundary Act, Devizes, which retained both its seats, was extended into the chapelry of St. James’s and part of the adjoining parish of Rowde. The new borough had a population of 6,367, with 1,200 houses, of which 409 were valued at £10 or more, and a registered electorate of 315.51 Financial disaster having befallen Watson Taylor, he left the House at the dissolution in December 1832, as did Pearse, who retired, while Bucknall Estcourt, son of the former Member, declined. Locke and Gore offered as Liberals, and Taylor, boasting his own radical credentials, introduced Admiral Sir Charles Philip Henderson Durham, who had nearly been elected for Queenborough in 1830 as a Tory, but who now claimed to be a reformer. After a bitter contest, Locke and Gore were congratulated for having broken the 50-year Tory stranglehold on the borough.52 Thereafter the representation, still largely in the hands of leading gentry families, was generally shared between Liberals and Conservatives, at least until the second Reform Act.

Author: Stephen Farrell


  • 1. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 418; VCH Wilts. v. 227-9.
  • 2. PP (1831-2), xl. 103, 104.
  • 3. J. J. Slade, ‘Wilts. Newspapers’, Wilts. Arch. Mag. xl (1917), 40-45.
  • 4. The Times, 11 July 1827; Pigot’s Commercial Dir. (1830), 797, 798; L. Haycock, John Anstie of Devizes, 93.
  • 5. Lists of the members of the corporation attending each meeting are given in its minutes, which are at Wilts. RO, Devizes borough recs. G20/1/21, 22, and partially printed in B.H. Cunnington, Some Annals of Borough of Devizes.
  • 6. PP (1835), xxiv. 602, 603; Devizes Gazette, 29 Nov. 1827, 24 Feb. 1831.
  • 7. Oldfield, Rep. Hist. (1816), v. 157,158; Spectator, 1 Jan. 1831.
  • 8. P. Fraser, ‘Party voting in House of Commons’, EHR, xcviii (1983), 773; Wilts. RO, Devizes Bear Club mss 1090; Devizes Gazette, 17 Aug. 1820.
  • 9. HP Commons, 1790-1820, iv. 739.
  • 10. Black Bk. (1820), 431; Full View of Commons (1821), 20, 21.
  • 11. R.B. Mosse, Parl. Guide (1835), 167; E. Bradby, Bk. of Devizes, 95, 96; F. O’Gorman, Voters, Patrons, and Parties, 268, 280, 344.
  • 12. Devizes Gazette, 14 June 1900.
  • 13. Cunnington, ii. 71.
  • 14. Salisbury Jnl. 13 Mar. 1820.
  • 15. Glos. RO, Sotheron Estcourt mss D1571 F220.
  • 16. Ibid. F215; Devizes Gazette, 16, 23 Mar. 1820; Devizes borough recs. G20/1/21; Cunnington, ii. 73, which, like the minute book itself, gives figures of 21 votes for Estcourt and 16 for Pearse.
  • 17. Devon RO, Sidmouth mss 152M/OA, ‘Mayor of Devizes’; Cunnington, ii. 75.
  • 18. J. Waylen, Annals of Devizes (1908), 26; Cunnington, ii. 75-76; Add. 51686, Lansdowne to Holland, 19 Nov.; Devizes Gazette, 16, 23, 30 Nov., 7, 21 Dec.; Salisbury Jnl. 25 Dec. 1820.
  • 19. CJ, lxxvi. 5; Devizes Gazette, 4, 11, 18 Jan. 1821.
  • 20. CJ, lxxvi. 436; lxxvii. 290, 437; lxxix. 130, 132, 148, 446; lxxx. 95; lxxxi. 31, 101; Devizes Gazette, 25 Mar. 1824; The Times, 15 June 1821, 24 May, 19 July 1822, 9, 12 Mar., 2 June 1824, 19 Feb. 1825, 11, 25 Feb. 1826.
  • 21. CJ, lxxx. 320, 350; LJ, lvii. 645; Devizes Gazette, 21, 28 Apr.; The Times, 29 Apr. 1825.
  • 22. J. Waylen, Chrons. of Devizes (1839), 167-70; CJ, lxxx. 64, 224, 234, 319, 464, 586, 628; Devizes Gazette, 3 Feb., 12 May, 14 July, 16 Oct. 1825.
  • 23. Devizes borough recs. G20/1/21; Cunnington, ii. 80-82; Devizes Gazette, 16, 30 June, 4 Aug., 29 Sept., 13 Oct.; Keenes’ Bath Jnl. 17 Oct. 1825.
  • 24. Devizes Gazette, 16, 23 Feb., 9 Mar., 22 June 1826.
  • 25. Ibid. 30 Sept. 1824, 6 Oct., 17 Nov. 1825.
  • 26. Ibid. 9, 16, 23 Feb., 2 Mar. 1826; Cunnington, ii. 84-86; Moore Mems. v. 51.
  • 27. Salisbury Jnl. 1 May 1826.
  • 28. Devizes Gazette, 15 June 1826.
  • 29. Gent. Mag. (1826), ii. 381; H. Bull and J. Waylen, Hist. Devizes, 527; Devizes borough recs. G20/1/22.
  • 30. Devizes Gazette, 28 June, 3 Dec.; Sotheron Estcourt mss X57, Salmon to Bucknall Estcourt, 28 Nov.; F665, latter to Sidmouth, 30 Nov. 1827; PP (1835), xxiv. 602.
  • 31. Devizes borough recs. G20/1/22; Cunnington, ii. 88-91; Devizes Gazette, 12 June, 14 Aug. 1828.
  • 32. CJ, lxxxii. 504, 555; lxxxiii. 79, 100; The Times, 31 May 1827.
  • 33. CJ, lxxxiii. 389, 392, 493; Devizes Gazette, 1, 8, 22 May, 19, 26 June 1828.
  • 34. Devizes Gazette, 2, 9, 16 Apr. 1829.
  • 35. Ibid. 4 Mar. 1830; CJ, lxxxv. 184, 424.
  • 36. Devizes borough recs. G20/1/22; Devizes Gazette, 5 Aug. 1830; PP (1830-1), x. 26, 69.
  • 37. For example, Bull and Waylen, 532, 547.
  • 38. Devizes Gazette, 23 Sept. 1830; CJ, lxxxvi. 20, 175, 436.
  • 39. E. J. Hobsbawm and G. Rudé, Captain Swing (1985), 96; Devizes Gazette, 25 Nov., 2, 9 Dec. 1830.
  • 40. Devizes Mus. Cuttings, iii. 74, Locke to Waylen, 28 Jan.; Keenes’ Bath Jnl. 31 Jan.; Devizes Gazette, 3, 10 Feb., 3, 10 Mar.; The Times, 26 Feb., 1, 10, 19 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 279, 324, 355, 402; LJ, lxiii. 253.
  • 41. Sotheron Estcourt mss E411.
  • 42. Cunnington, ii. 95-96, 245-7; Devizes Gazette, 14, 21, 28 Apr. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 500.
  • 43. Sotheron Estcourt mss E411.
  • 44. Devizes Mus. Cuttings, iii. 74; C/1/127; Devizes Gazette, 31 Mar., 7, 14, 28 Apr.; Salisbury Jnl. 2 May 1831.
  • 45. Devizes Gazette, 5 May 1831; H.A. Bruce, Life of Napier, i. 297, 346-52.
  • 46. Devizes borough recs. G20/1/22; Devizes Gazette, 5 May 1831.
  • 47. Devizes Gazette, 11 Aug. 1831.
  • 48. Ibid. 9, 16 June 1831; Waylen, Annals, 30.
  • 49. Devizes Gazette, 29 Sept., 6, 13, 27 Oct. 1831; Bruce, i. 353-7, 373; LJ, lxiii. 1047.
  • 50. Devizes Gazette, 17 May 1832; CJ, lxxxvii. 262, 321.
  • 51. Ibid. 6 Sept. 1832; PP (1831-2), xl. 103-5; (1835), xxiv. 610.
  • 52. Devizes Gazette, 24 May, 7, 14 June, 13 Dec. 1832, 17 Jan. 1833; Wilts. RO 212A/36/18; Devizes Mus. Wilts. election pprs. Devizes 1818-68; election bills, Devizes 1832.