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

Background Information

Number of enrolled freeholders:

240 in 1820; 255 in 1826; 239 in 1830


23 Mar. 1820Lemmon107
 Lemmon bt.14
23 June 1826Lemmon 
9 Aug. 1830Lemmon 
27 May 1831Lemmon85

Main Article

Fifeshire was noted for its agriculture, fisheries, coal deposits, hemp and linen trades. Census enumerators attributed its increase in population from 114,556 in 1821 to 128,859 in 1831, when 48 per cent of the 28,864 families were employed in trade and manufacture and 16 per cent in agriculture, to the jute and linen mills of Kirkcaldy and damask weaving in Dunfermline.1 Administratively, the county was a sheriffdom governed locally by a sheriff depute and a lord lieutenant, who could appoint a ?vice?. Its divisions, East and West Fife, each came under the jurisdiction of a separate sheriff substitute, and magistrates and commissioners of supply were appointed for the four subdivisions: St. Andrews, Cupar, Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy. The sheriff depute might also deputize as convener, an elective office filled annually at the Michaelmas head court. The convener controlled freeholder admissions and lists, which from 1820 were printed in the Edinburgh Almanac and elsewhere. Fifeshire?s royal burghs were grouped in two districts exclusive to the county: Dysart, Burntisland, Kinghorn and Kirkcaldy; Easter and Wester Anstruther, Crail, Kilrenny and Pittenweem. In addition, St. Andrews and the county town, Cupar, shared a Member with Perth, Dundee and Forfar, while Dunfermline, Inverkeithing and Queensferry were part of the Stirling group. Auchtermuchty, Earlsferry, Falkland and Newburgh were royal burghs hitherto unrepresented in Parliament, and the remaining burghs or baronies were Elie, Ladybank, Leslie, Leven, Linktown, Newburgh and West Wemyss. Estates were generally small and rivals for a stake in the representation numerous. Many Members held Fifeshire freeholds.2 The sitting Member in 1820, William Wemyss of Wemyss, an anti-Catholic Tory first returned in 1787, had in 1796 countered his temporary unpopularity and boosted his military career by making way for his brother-in-law Sir William Erskine of Torrie. The Whig Robert Ferguson* of Raith had thwarted his attempt to regain the seat in 1806, but the following year the 1st Viscount Melville, whose county seat was near Cupar, had colluded in his return.

Wemyss sat ailing and undisturbed for the next three Parliaments, while the Fergusons and Whig earls of Rosslyn (Barons Loughborough), Sir John Oswald of Dunnikier and the Tory Lindsays of Balcarres, who had new East Indian wealth, manoeuvred to become his successor.3 Wemyss?s own objective, which infuriated Oswald, was to transfer the seat to his elder son James, a naval captain, who commenced a remarkable electioneering career as his father?s committee chairman in 1818 and deputized for him at the election meeting.4 The vice-lieutenant, the 9th earl of Kellie, hoped ?that the father and son will settle the business ... quietly, in absence in France of a supposed opponent Mr. Ferguson? in 1820.5 However, when the elder Wemyss announced his retirement following George III?s death, 2 Feb. 1820, a vituperative correspondence with Oswald ensued and it became evident that a contest was unavoidable. Oswald informed the Liverpool government?s Scottish election manager, the 2nd Viscount Melville, that day that he considered the younger Wemyss ?in many respects an improper person to represent the county and that my conduct ... must greatly depend upon how far the candidate is likely to obtain the support of government in opposition to myself?; and he refused to back down after Melville warned him on the 7th that Wemyss had the backing of Lords Kellie and Hopetoun and that a division in their party could result in the return of a Whig.6 James Stuart of Dunearn and Edinburgh, a Whig moderate who advertised his candidature on 5 Feb., was a stalking horse for Robert Ferguson and desisted directly Ferguson agreed to stand, 10 Feb. Oswald had declared publicly as a church and state candidate, 9 Feb., and Wemyss stood on the ?same Pittite principles? as his father.7 Melville, hearing from Kellie and others on the 10th that Wemyss?s success was assured, maintained that government would not interfere, but he kept a close watch on the Tory infighting.8 Facing defeat, Oswald and Ferguson, who projected himself as a reluctant candidate, attributed Wemyss?s success to his ?indecorous? early canvass before the king?s funeral.9 Justifying his own conduct to Melville on the 25th, Oswald wrote:

I did not anticipate that either Lord Kellie or through him Lord Hopetoun would have given in to such a project, or that upon any sound principle they should have been led to consider the interests of government in this country as properly placed in the hands of the Wemyss family. For many years past the General was rather suffered than approved of as a representative of the county, and the bringing forward [of] the son, who possesses no personal claims, under the very peculiar situation of his family, was a measure that I did not conceive any judicious person would have promoted. This appears to me the more extraordinary upon the part of the Hope family, who never had any intimacy with that of Wemyss and who upon public grounds were supported in opposition to them by my father and many respectable gentlemen of the county only a few years ago ... Upon this occasion Wemyss has taken the county by surprise, but upon my canvass I have found a general sentiment prevailing as to his unfitness for the situation and of the disrespect with which the county has been treated. So far does this extend that several of the very respectable freeholders who support me would though differing in politics have gone to Mr. Ferguson rather than join with Wemyss. Ferguson has come most reluctantly forward. Nor do I believe that so long as things above continue as they are, he will ever again be put in motion. Many of his moderate private friends upon a future occasion, will I know be with me ... Meanwhile I shall now proceed in concert with many of the most respectable of the county, to establish an interest warmly attached to government, but opposed to the pretensions of the Wemyss.10

Melville, who delayed replying until 6 Mar., warned that Wemyss?s support would not evaporate quickly.11 The candidates attended the county meeting, chaired by the lord lieutenant, the 16th earl of Morton, to adopt addresses of condolence and congratulation to George IV, 13 Mar. Ten days later, with Major-General Sir Robert Balfour of Balbirnie as the election praeses, Wemyss secured majorities of 63 over Ferguson and 93 over Oswald in a poll of 165. Ferguson claimed that he had had the support of a third of the electorate and attributed his poor showing to his decision, on perceiving Wemyss?s strength, to advise his distant supporters to stay away to reduce costs. Captain Ayton of Inchdairnie, Stuart and Ferguson?s brother, the Member for Dysart Burghs General Sir Ronald Craufurd Ferguson (who was commonly misreported as the candidate), opposed the vote of thanks to the late Member.12 This, according to the Scotsman of 25 Mar. 1820, was ?agreed to by a great majority, which were, however, entirely mute?. James Wemyss had difficulty gaining control of county patronage in the 1820 Parliament before he eventually prevailed over Oswald and the Lindsays and secured the appointment of his nominee Dr. Adamson as first minister of Cupar in January 1825, in what became a test case involving the home secretary Peel.13

Petitions were received from the noblemen, freeholders and commissioners of supply for repeal of the 1819 Act encouraging Irish fisheries and for bounties on linen, 6, 30 June, and from the Kirkcaldy district against relaxation of the timber duties, 3 July 1820.14 Sir Ronald Ferguson was among Queen Caroline?s chief partisans, and Kinghorn and his Abbotshall, Dysart and Kirkcaldy neighbourhood were illuminated to mark the abandonment of the bill of pains and penalties in November 1820 and supported the petitioning campaign on her behalf.15 A county meeting at Cupar chaired by Kellie, 28 Dec. 1820, adopted a loyal address to the king, proposed by General James Durham of Largo and seconded by Bruce of Grangemuir, but not before Stuart, John Cunninghame of Douloch and Rosslyn, who supported an amendment calling for freedom of the press proposed by General Robert Ayton of Inchdairnie and James Hunt of Pittencrieff, had forced a division, which they lost by 85-35. Wemyss, Oswald and the sheriff depute Andrew Clephane declared for the original pro-government address.16 The farmers and maltsters petitioned the Commons, 21 Mar., for repeal of the additional malt duty, which Wemyss, who rallied support through the Chicken Pye Club, vehemently opposed, and the noblemen and freeholders followed suit, 17 May 1821.17 The magistrates at their spring meeting contributed to the petitioning campaign against the Scottish juries bill, 18 May 1821, and Oswald threatened to organize his own petition after Clephane refused to call a meeting when the measure was revived in 1822.18 Petitions against the proposed restrictions on distilling that favoured the Irish trade had bipartisan support and over 2,000 farmers signed that presented to the Commons, 6 May 1822.19 The agriculturists petitioned both Houses the following year complaining of the low price of tallow, 21 May, and the weavers and operatives petitioned for and the manufacturers against the 1823 linen manufacture bill, 7, 21 May, 20 June.20 Petitions were forthcoming from the procurators? clerks for repeal of the duties on attorneys? licences, 1 Apr., and the presbyteries against the poor rates bill, 14 May 1824.21 Morton, who requested the appointment, became lord lieutenant of Midlothian that month and was succeeded in Fifeshire by Kellie, and Lieutenant-General Sir Charles Hope of Craighall became the convener.22 Five new claimants were enrolled at the head court at Cupar, 5 Oct. 1824, and ?Earls Rosslyn and Leven, Lord Loughborough, Sirs Robert Henderson, R.C. Ferguson, P. Durham, John Oswald, Generals Durham and Balfour ... [and] nearly 50 proprietors? afterwards cross-examined Wemyss over his parliamentary conduct, especially his recent opposition to the Scottish juries bill, and urged him to press for equalization of the distillery regulations; but the major issues were a scheme for a new Forth ferry (linking Kinghorn and Burntisland) and the proposed Leith docks bill.23 The freeholders, farmers and commissioners of supply petitioned both Houses in April 1825 against relaxation of the corn laws.24 The weavers of Ceres, Scoonie and adjoining parishes forwarded petitions to Sir Ronald Ferguson, Joseph Hume and John Stuart Wortley in 1825 and 1826 seeking inquiry by the Commons into the case of the local radical Robert Gourlay and pleading for his release from Cold Bath Fields gaol.25 The Fife Banking Company of Cupar, which had 39 partners, was a rare Scottish casualty of the 1825-6 crisis, and Wemyss and Robert Lindsay of Balcarres were the main speakers and Kellie the praeses at the county meeting, 9 Mar., that petitioned both Houses against interference with the Scottish banking system, 20 Mar. 1826.26 Auchtermuchty, where the Perth Banking Company had a branch, petitioned the Lords similarly, 11 Apr.27 The Commons received petitions against West Indian slavery that month from Crail, the presbytery of Kirkcaldy and elsewhere.28 Canvassing had commenced in earnest at the Chicken Pye Club show at Crossgates and Kelso races when a dissolution was expected the previous autumn;29 and Wemyss, who chaired county meetings on the Forth ferries, 5 May, 8 June 1826 (after the contentious bill promoted by the Fergusons was enacted), rightly anticipated an unopposed return at the general election that month.30 His proposers were Wemyss of Dembrae and Rosslyn?s heir Lord Loughborough*, and Alexander Murray of Ayton, the oldest freeholder present, chaired. Under examination, Wemyss spoke of his politics hitherto as ?favourable to Lord Liverpool?s administration?, criticized Huskisson and the liberal Tories and refused to guarantee his future conduct.31 His marriage to Lord Erroll?s daughter in August and his sister?s to Loughborough in October 1826 enhanced his Fifeshire connections.

The county was convened in January 1827 after interference by certain corporations and the bankruptcy of the entrepreneur Andrew Greenhill put the Forth ferry and attendant road schemes in jeopardy.32 Requesting Rosslyn?s attendance, 8 Jan., the sheriff?s clerk Thomas Horsburgh wrote:

I cannot but view with the deepest regret the crisis to which the county has been brought by the folly and ignorance of a set of thoughtless gentlemen arising in the first instance out of pique and jealousy in some, supported by avaricious principles in others, and last, though not the least by self-interested motives of an individual. When I look back to the time and attention which a set of most liberal and intelligent gentlemen have for so many years donated to bring the system of the ferries to as great perfection as was possible, and see that when they were on the point of arriving at this, their truly valuable services are overlooked and their plan thwarted and disappointed by such a group as I have described them, I cannot but feel the highest regret and indignation. I trust their conduct will yet be properly characterized and made public.33

The cotton manufacturer James Aytoun secured a resolution at the meeting demanding detailed accounts of the administration of the ferries, with which the corporation of Kirkcaldy, as managers of the eastern ferries, repeatedly refused to comply.34 The weavers of Scoonie, Wemyss and Earlsferry joined those of Dysart in petitioning Parliament for relaxation of the corn laws in 1827, when the county and its farmers sought inquiry and continued protection.35 Opinion on the abortive 1827 salmon fisheries bill was divided. A freeholders? meeting chaired by Clephane, 30 Apr., at the request of burghs in the Dysart and Perth districts and certain Tay owners and lessees, petitioned for the measure, but several owners also opposed it.36 On Melville?s recommendation Rosslyn succeeded Kellie as lord lieutenant in February 1828 and, much to the annoyance of Sir Philip Durham of Largo, who held Wemyss personally responsible for the failure of his canvass, Balfour of Balbirnie became convener.37 Wemyss, who voted against the concession of Catholic emancipation in 1829, brought up hostile petitions from his neighbourhood, 11 Mar., and supported another from the synod of Kirkcaldy, 30 Mar.38 Farmers and landowners in the four districts and a county meeting chaired by Durham of Largo and addressed by Wemyss of Pitkinny and Kellie?s illegitimate grandson and heir Sir David Erskine of Combo, 22 Apr., petitioned both Houses against the proposed additional duty on corn spirits, 3, 17 May, and the parish and inhabitants of Newburgh petitioned the Lords similarly, 17 May 1830.39 Petitions were also forthcoming that session for abolition of the death penalty for forgery.40 A hostile editorial in the Fife Herald, 29 Apr., encouraged petitioning against the 1830 Scottish judicature bill, warning that ?in place of lessening the expense, or shortening litigation, it will increase both?. Recent county meetings had afforded a platform for the reformer General George Campbell of Edenwood, who, with financial assistance from his brother John Campbell II*, had purchased a Fife freehold in 1821.41 At the 1830 general election Campbell first echoed Oswald?s criticism of the sheriff and convener (Andrew Jameson of Renny Hill and Balfour of Balbirnie) for scheduling the meeting to adopt addresses of condolence and congratulation and the election on the same day, the first with Wemyss as praeses, the second with Balfour. Erskine of Cambo and White Melville of Bennochie said nothing of Wemyss?s politics on nominating him, but Campbell drew attention to the independent and uncertain political line he had followed since Liverpool?s stroke in February 1827, noting especially his recent vote to abolish the Irish lord lieutenancy, which Wemyss defended, and to his failure to secure patronage for all save his family. Ignoring his brother William?s appointment as a military aide-de-camp to William IV, Wemyss made a virtue of his ?lack of patronage?, projected himself as a sailor and Fifeshire man, refused to give pledges or discuss parliamentary reform, and was returned unopposed.42

Towns, villages, congregations and branches of the Political Union petitioned Parliament against slavery in the winter of 1830-1, and Campbell took pains to have any from the Cupar district forwarded for presentation by his brother, who had come in for Stafford.43 In the wake of Hume?s tour as the newly elected Member for Middlesex, the political unions and burghs of Auchtermuchty and Leslie petitioned for reform, including burgh reform, retrenchment, lower taxes, an extended franchise, short parliaments, annually elected councils and the ballot; and the Fife Herald reprinted extracts from pro-reform articles in the Edinburgh Review and James Dunlop?s pamphlet to sustain the campaign, which at Cupar in November was taken up by Sir Ronald Ferguson.44 Wemyss?s interest in the River Leven improvement bill (affecting mills and fisheries) was discussed at a quarrelsome proprietors? meeting in Leslie, 26 Oct., when his argument that his stretch of river was controlled by a long-term tenant failed to silence allegations of jobbery, and in December 1830 the issue featured in letters to the Herald from ?A Freeholder of Fife? pressing for a county reform meeting.45 Balfour organized a meeting on militia legislation at short notice, 26 Jan. 1831, but prevaricated over holding one on reform and found fault with the requisition submitted by Campbell, to whom he wrote:

I believe, neither by law nor the practice of the county of Fife, am I vested with the power to convene a meeting of the freeholders and heritors. My power as convener only extends over the commissioners of supply and that legally only for purposes connected with taxation; though it has been extended and exercised upon other occasions, when the commissioners of supply were required to assemble. As to the requisition itself, I am advised that signing by mandate is unusual if not irregular, and I cannot find that any former requisition was so signed.46

On 20 Jan. 1831 the requisitionists met at Cupar with Major J.F. Briggs of the 28th Foot as praeses and resolved to publish the entire correspondence in the ?North British Advertiser, the Edinburgh Courant, the Caledonian Mercury, the Scotsman [and] the Fife Herald?.47 No county meeting ensued, but the magistrates, councils, burgesses and inhabitants of Auchtermuchty, Earlsferry, Falkland and Newburgh petitioned for restoration of their franchise as royal burghs, 4 Feb., and in favour of the Grey government?s reform proposals, 14, 19, 21 Mar.48 Similar petitions were received from the inhabitants of Elie, 16 Feb., 4, 19, 22 Mar., and East and West Wemyss, 22 Mar., but those adopted at industrial Dundst (Auchtermuchty) remained radical in tone, and a petition to the Lords from Leslie included repeal of the corn laws and abolition of the East India?s trading monopoly among its demands, 28 Feb.49 The district agricultural societies petitioned the Commons for concessions in the regulations affecting grain purchase, 14, 19 Mar. Petitions from the tenantry of the western, 14 Mar., and eastern divisions, 20 Apr., included resolutions applauding the provision made in the Scottish reform bill for their enfranchisement.50 The bill, as its authors realized would be the case, provoked considerable local hostility to tampering with the county jurisdiction, increasing the property qualification for Members and transferring power to villages and urban areas through the ?10 vote. Local opposition was raised to the ?quashing [of] the set of mean Fife [Anstruther] burghs? to release a seat for Dundee, and a proposal for ?throwing the whole of the towns of the east and north of Fife into one district with Cupar and St. Andrews? was particularly resented, and was made the subject of a furious editorial in the Fife Herald of 7 Apr.51 The campaign on behalf of Auchtermuchty, Earlsferry, Falkland, Newburgh had by mid-March given way to another to secure a reprieve for the Anstruther Burghs or a second county Member. Exploiting this resentment at the provisions for Fifeshire in the Scottish reform bill, the 6th earl of Balcarres and his relations now canvassed openly against Wemyss and promoted the candidature the Member for Wigan, Colonel James Lindsay, who had previously been thought of for the Anstruther Burghs.52 Concentrating on the English (rather than the Scottish) bill, the reformers arranged illuminations countywide to celebrate its successful second reading, for which Wemyss had voted, and glossed over his known reservations concerning the details of the Scottish measure. Lindsay?s canvassing notices of 16 Apr. claimed that he had decided to put his Scottish interests before his military career and failed to mention reform. Wemyss dismissed fabricated reports of his retirement and announced his intended candidature in circulars drafted on the Scarborough steam packet, 17 Apr., during his voyage to London to vote for the reform bill (19 Apr.). He confirmed his intentions directly the English measure was defeated that day, precipitating a dissolution of which the Leven improvement bill (which received royal assent, 30 July 1831) was a temporary casualty.53 The Fergusons and the Herald rallied to Wemyss and the ?largest [electoral] roll in Scotland? ensured an arduous canvass. Lindsay?s friends remained confident and both sides agreed that ?Fife will run very close? and would turn on the choice of praeses.54 The Lindsays? nominee, the Member for Dumfries Burghs William Douglas, who was proposed by Admiral Sir Frederick Pusk, prevailed by 81-66 over Wemyss?s choice, Balfour of Balbirnie, and after seven new freeholders were admitted (four for Lindsay and three for Wemyss) Lindsay, sponsored by Oswald?s heir Captain James Oswald and Durham of Largo, secured a majority of 15 over Wemyss in a poll of 147. Robert Ferguson of Raith?s speech nominating Wemyss was tantamount to a concession of defeat, but Ayton of Inchdairnie forced a crucial admission from Lindsay that he was opposed to reform. Speculation about Campbell?s vote ended when, in an eagerly awaited speech, he declared firmly with Sir Ronald Ferguson and Hunt of Pittencrieff for Wemyss.55 The Times, in its review of anti-reformers in the 1831-2 Parliament, noted that Colonel Lindsay ?boldly attacked and won his own county, the lairds of which, for ever celebrated as having a bee in their bonnet, drove away (to prove their being daft) their ci-devant semi-liberal Member, who had voted for reform?.56

Lindsay voted against the reintroduced and revised reform bills and, taking up the cause of the Fife boroughs, presented hostile petitions from East Fife and Anstruther, 23 Sept. 1831.57 He claimed credit during his 1832 canvass for the inclusion of St. Andrews and Cupar in the reprieved and revised Anstruther district.58 Auchtermuchty, Earlsferry, Elie, Leslie, Newburgh, St. Ninians, Strathmiglo, Kettle and other parishes petitioned the Lords in support of reform, 30 Sept.-5 Oct. 1831, and met again following the English bill?s defeat.59 When in May 1832 a further defeat in the Lords, the ministry?s resignation and the king?s invitation to the duke of Wellington to form an administration put reform in jeopardy, petitions were widely adopted for the withdrawal of supplies pending its enactment, but most were shelved to expedite the passage of the English, Irish and Scottish bills following Lord Grey?s reinstatement.60 The Lords received petitions for ?undiluted reform? from the inhabitants of Auchermuchty and Dunsteer and the political unions of Balmerino and Leslie and surrounding districts, 11 May, and Leven and neighbouring parishes contributed to the late petitioning against the ?300 qualification for Burgh Members.61 Petitions were also forwarded to the Commons from the flax spinners for the continuation of their 72-hour week under the factory bill, 8 Mar., 16 July, and from the synod of Fife against the Maynooth grant, 7 May 1832.62 As the ministry?s Scottish managers had expected, a scheme for a county police force was discussed at a county meeting on 17 May.63 Another on 12 July 1832 to consider the attack on the king at Ascot races was an ill-disguised Conservative rally chaired by Lord Rothes to promote Lindsay?s re-election.64

At the general election of 1832, when Fifeshire had a registered electorate of 2,186, Wemyss, standing as a Liberal, was returned unopposed after Lindsay retired to avoid defeat.65 The county was contested nine times between 1834 and 1885, when the eastern and western divisions were awarded separate representation. With Wemyss as their Member until 1847 (he reversed his decision to retire at the 1837 election), the Liberals made Fifeshire an ?impossible constituency for the Conservatives? and the Liberal hegemony endured uninterrupted.66

Author: Margaret Escott


  • 1. Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland (1895), ii. 18; Census Enumeration Abstract (1831), ii. 977-80.
  • 2. Ordnance Gazetteer of Scotland, ii. 18; A.E. Whetstone, Scottish Co. Government in 18th and 19th Cent. 5, 11-14, 61-64, 70-72, 89, 97, 102, and passim.
  • 3. M. Fry, Dundas Despotism, 250, 284, 286; HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 537-9.
  • 4. NAS GD51/1/198/10/84.
  • 5. NAS GD51/1/198/10/75.
  • 6. NAS GD51/1/198/10/76, 77, 84; 51/1/749/1, f. 182.
  • 7. Caledonian Mercury, 5, 7, 10, 12, 14 Feb. 1820.
  • 8. NLS mss 1054, f. 177; NAS GD51/1/198/10/79-85.
  • 9. NAS GD51/1/198/86; Bradford mss (History of Parliament Aspinall transcripts), Lady to Lord Newport, 27 Feb. 1820.
  • 10. NAS GD51/1/198/10/86.
  • 11. NAS GD51/1/198/10/87.
  • 12. Oswald of Dunnikier mss VIA/2, election speeches, 1820; Caledonian Mercury, 23, 25 Mar., 3 Apr. 1820.
  • 13. NAS GD51/1/198/10/88, 89; Add. 40370, ff. 235, 237; 40371, ff. 53, 59; 40372, ff. 43, 45, 70, 170-84.
  • 14. CJ, lxxv. 375, 384; LJ, liii. 109.
  • 15. British Gazette and Berwick Advertiser, 18, 25 Nov.; The Times, 22 Nov. 1820; CJ, lxxvi. 97, 159.
  • 16. Caledonian Mercury, 21 Dec. 1820, 1, 8 Jan.; The Times, 2 Jan. 1821; NAS GD51/5/115.
  • 17. CJ, lxxvi. 188, 350.
  • 18. CJ, lxxvi. 357; Cockburn Letters, 59.
  • 19. Ibid. 7 May 1822; CJ, lxxvii. 235.
  • 20. CJ, lxxviii. 292, 326; LJ, lv. 804.
  • 21. CJ, lxxix. 136, 365.
  • 22. NAS GD51/5/135.
  • 23. Caledonian Mercury, 7 Oct. 1824.
  • 24. The Times, 27 Apr. 1825; LJ, lvii. 657; CJ, lxxx. 350.
  • 25. CJ, lxxx. 412; lxxxi. 290, 297; The Times, 14 May 1825, 27, 28 Apr. 1826.
  • 26. LJ, lviii. 125, 505; Caledonian Mercury, 2, 13 Mar. 1826; CJ, lxxxi. 188.
  • 27. LJ, lxiii. 174, 455.
  • 28. CJ, lxxxi. 249, 253, 290.
  • 29. Caledonian Mercury, 8, 20 Oct. 1825.
  • 30. NAS GD164/1799/11, 12, 15; Scotsman, 27 May, 3 June; Edinburgh Evening Courant, 8, 12 June 1826.
  • 31. Scotsman, 1 July 1826.
  • 32. Caledonian Mercury, 14 Dec. 1826.
  • 33. NAS GD164/1303/15, 16.
  • 34. NAS GD164/1303/17, 20, 21; Caledonian Mercury, 11 Oct. 1828.
  • 35. LJ, lx. 68, 72; CJ, lxxxii. 229, 383, 581; The Times, 24, 27 Feb., 20 June 1827.
  • 36. Caledonian Mercury, 23 Apr., 5 May 1827; CJ, lxxxii. 428, 447, 449, 458, 472, 491.
  • 37. NLS mss 2, ff. 117, 125; Wellington mss WP1/918/1; Oswald of Dunnikier mss VIA/2, Wemyss to Oswald, 26 Aug., 14, 17 Sept. 1828.
  • 38. CJ, lxxxiv. 124; The Times, 31 Mar. 1829.
  • 39. Edinburgh Evening Courant, 12 Apr.; Fife Herald, 15, 29 Apr. 1830; CJ, lxxxv. 359, 434; LJ, lxii. 305, 527.
  • 40. CJ, lxxxv. 465; LJ, lxii. 759.
  • 41. Life of Campbell, i. 393; Fife Herald, 29 Apr. 1830.
  • 42. Fife Herald, 8, 15, 29 July, 12 Aug.; Scotsman, 14 Aug. 1830.
  • 43. Life of Campbell, i. 477, 494-5; CJ, lxxxvi. 144, 408; LJ, lxiii. 134, 164, 165, 187, 323.
  • 44. Scotsman, 1 Sept.; Fife Herald, 7, 14, 21, 28 Oct., 4, 11 Nov.; The Times, 16 Nov. 1830; LJ, lxiii. 119, 265, 275,
  • 45. Fife Herald, 28 Oct., 4 Nov., 9 Dec. 1830.
  • 46. Ibid. 6, 20 Jan. 1831.
  • 47. Ibid. 20, 27 Jan. 1831.
  • 48. LJ, lxiii. 203-5, 319, 355; CJ, lxxxvi. 211-12, 310, 371, 405, 406, 416.
  • 49. CJ, lxxxvi. 255, 405; LJ, lxiii. 254, 272, 353, 355.
  • 50. CJ, lxxxvi. 371, 376, 409, 510.
  • 51. Cockburn Jnl. i. 11; Cockburn Letters, 370, 371, 394-5.
  • 52. Fife Herald, 31 Mar., 7, 16 Apr. 1831.
  • 53. Ibid. 21, 28 Apr.; Edinburgh Evening Courant, 23, 25 Apr. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 712.
  • 54. Macpherson Grant mss 118, G. Macpherson Grant to son, 27 Apr.; Cockburn Letters, 245; Caledonian Mercury, 30 Apr., 7 May; NAS GD224/581/4, A. Pringle to Buccleuch, 2 May 1831.
  • 55. Scotsman, 28 May; Fife Herald, 2 June 1831.
  • 56. The Times, 25 Aug. 1831.
  • 57. Cockburn Letters, 340; CJ, lxxxvi. 863.
  • 58. Fife Herald, 21, 28 June 1832.
  • 59. The Times, 1, 7 Oct. 1831; LJ, lxiii. 1022, 1023, 1034, 1036, 1045-7, 1066.
  • 60. Caledonian Mercury, 14, 21 May 1832; CJ, lxxxvii. 488.
  • 61. CJ, lxxxvii. 488; LJ, lxiv. 199, 200, 336, 363; G. Pentland, ‘Debate on Scottish Parl. Reform, 1830-1832’, SHR, lxxxv (2006), 126.
  • 62. CJ, lxxxvii. 174, 293, 492.
  • 63. Caledonian Mercury, 7, 21 May 1832; Cockburn Letters, 409.
  • 64. Caledonian Mercury, 30 June, 5, 19 July 1832.
  • 65. The Times, 20 Nov.; Fife Herald, 13, 20 Dec. 1832.
  • 66. M. Dyer, ‘"Mere detail and machinery"’, SHR, lxii (1983), 28, 30; Scottish Electoral Politics, 224, 252, 274-5.