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

Estimated number qualified to vote:

about 120, rising to about 160 in 1830

Number of voters:

94 in 1826


6,390 (1821); 6,459 (1831)


 Henry Charles Sturt33
6 Oct. 1831SIR JOHN BYNG vice Ponsonby, vacated his seat56
 Charles Augustus Tulk42

Main Article

Poole, a county of itself, was a vibrant seaport on a narrow isthmus of land to the north of a large harbour.1 The naturalist Philip Henry Gosse, who grew up there, later recollected the typical scene on ‘the quay, with its shipping and sailors; their songs, and cries of "Heave with a will, yo ho!", the busy merchants bustling to and fro’.2 The town was still prosperous in this period when there were many local improvements, notably the rebuilding of the parish church of St. James in 1820.3 Yet the golden age of the Newfoundland trade had largely come to an end with the termination of the Napoleonic Wars, leading to a slow economic decline, even if coastal trades, such as the shipping of clay, had expanded.4 The franchise of the borough, which was coextensive with the parish of St. James, was in the freemen (or burgesses), resident and non-resident, who, with the mayor and two bailiffs, comprised the corporation.5 A handful of freemen, who were chosen by the resident burgesses, were elected each year, and the fee of £25 was often waived.6 The rights of non-residents, who made up perhaps a quarter to a third of the total, came to be increasingly limited and, for example, the water (or junior) bailiff was removed in 1829 and 1831 for living outside the town.7 From 1790 to 1831 there were on average about 120 electors, of whom about 95 voted in parliamentary elections.8 The numerous inhabitant householders claimed the right to vote as the ‘commonalty’, which (as at Lyme Regis) was a constituent part of the corporation under its charter, but their case had been rejected by the Commons on several occasions, the last in 1791.9 Partly to reduce the pressure on it from the inhabitants, the corporation made exceptionally large admissions of 64 freemen in 1804 and 57 in 1818.10

The representation was dominated by three interconnecting and fluctuating interests, all of which worked through the medium of the corporation, thus fuelling internecine party squabbles and resulting in a large number of contested municipal elections, especially after 1828.11 The most powerful influence was that of the oligarchy of Newfoundland merchant families, composed of about seven firms, who essentially controlled the corporation.12 By the 1810s the leading interest belonged to the merchant and former Member George Garland, whose numerous brothers and sons were corporators. His eldest son, Benjamin Lester Lester, who had first been returned in 1809, represented the mercantile concerns of the town, and established an unassailable position as the corporation’s Member. However, Garland did not enjoy undisputed control, as was proved by an unpleasant episode at the general election of 1818, when his son-in-law Christopher Spurrier* of nearby Upton House, the son of another Newfoundland merchant, forced a contest. This resulted from a bitter family quarrel, but could also be viewed as an attempt by Spurrier to usurp the otherwise abeyant interest of the local squirearchy. In a sense this was represented by the second successful candidate in 1818, the London banker John ‘Dog’ Dent of Clapham, Surrey and Cockerham, Lancashire, who lived at Barton Cottage, near Christchurch, just across the county boundary in Hampshire. But Dent, who became a free burgess in March 1819, was in fact the nominee of government, who had the third interest, which it exercised through appointments to the customs house and by its commercial policies. Ministers had come to terms with the former Member John Jeffery of Sans Souci, a Newfoundland merchant, who had been rewarded with a consulship in 1809 and was deemed to head the ministerial party on the corporation. Jeffery’s one time protégé but by now mature Whig, Michael Angelo Taylor* of Ledston Hall, Yorkshire, who was the recorder from 1784 until his death in 1834, sat for Poole for a third spell from 1812; when he retreated to Durham in 1818, Garland and Dent, with the connivance of the Liverpool ministry, united to keep out Spurrier.13

Oldfield, who noted that in the past £1,000 was said to have been paid for a single vote, observed in 1820 that the Members

are not presumed to possess the personal interest over this immaculate corporation, but to act as subordinate agents to the treasury, from whom Mr. Jeffery, who was formerly an honest Quaker, has received the lucrative appointment of consul general to Portugal ... and Mr. Lester, who voted with the opposition, was obliged to ‘rat’, according to the parliamentary phrase, to preserve his seat. We understand that it is a not uncommon thing for a man to give £500 to become a burgess of this Member-making body, and the next election is expected to ‘bring him [Jeffery] home’, besides the chance he shares of partaking of the good things distributed by government amongst the corporation.14

Despite being nominally supporters of Tory administrations, both Members were inactive independents in the Commons, Dent becoming increasingly Canningite and Lester tending towards the Whigs. They were returned unopposed at the general election of 1820, when an unused manuscript poll book listed 117 electors, with a further 26 names erased. There were cries of ‘Lester and Dent for ever’, and a joint dinner took place at the Antelope, the usual hostelry of the corporation and ministerialist interest.15 Spurrier, who might have repeated his challenge, came in briefly for Bridport, and in October received a long letter from Garland, which detailed the injuries he had received and demanded a full apology if cordial relations were to be restored.16

There was an illumination in Poole to mark the acquittal of Queen Caroline in November 1820, when windows were broken at the house of Edward Allen, the comptroller of customs. The corporation agreed a loyal address to the king, 15 Dec., when an amendment in support of Caroline was defeated by 21 to 16.17 However, following requisitions to the sheriff, there were meetings of the inhabitants, 5 Dec. 1820, to approve an address to the queen, and 23 Jan., to agree a petition in her favour, which was presented to the Commons by Lester, 31 Jan. 1821.18 Poole petitions for revision of the criminal law were brought up in the Commons by Lester, 22 June, and the Lords by Lord King, 2 July 1821.19 Giving an insight into the way in which official patronage governed relations between the Members and the electors, Garland wrote to Lester, 10 May 1822, that

I do not wonder that you and Mr. Dent should frequently feel something like disgust at the constant applications of your constituents, for what they must frequently feel you cannot obtain. It is what I experienced many years, and perhaps felt as little gratified with it, as you do, but I never forgot my half of the question, namely, that as through their means I maintained my seat, it was my duty, and good policy, to receive or hear with patience what they had to say, do the best I could in the fair way of patronage and regret my inability to gratify all. I know this will not always give content; but [it] will generally silence clamour and reproach and, as a civil letter or answer is as easily conveyed as one of a contrary character, I advise you both to ... act on this principle. I advise you never to lend money to a burgess; too many, if not all, think their votes at a subsequent election sufficient to pay the debt, and cancel the obligation.20

Petitions from the inhabitants were brought up against the duties on coal, 5 May 1823, 23 Feb. 1824, and colonial slavery, 21 May 1823, 2 Mar. 1824, 21 Feb. 1826.21 A town meeting on 15 Feb. drew up a petition for repeal of the assessed taxes, which was presented, 24 Feb., by Lester, who brought up one from the merchants and ship owners against the Western Ship Canal bill, 6 May 1825.22

As Dent suffered from poor health and Jeffery had died in Lisbon in 1822, an opportunity was created for William Ponsonby, a younger son of the Whig 3rd earl of Bessborough, to challenge for the second seat as a local country gentleman. He had recently settled at Canford, where he owned much land and was lord of the manor, and had begun to contribute extensively to local improvements.23 In the autumn of 1824, when a violent contest was foreseen, Lord Lansdowne noted that Ponsonby had gone ‘to canvass Poole, with I believe a tolerable chance of success’, and the Tory Henry Charles Sturt* of Crichel House, Wimborne also came forward.24 Garland (who died in December that year) wrote to Lester, 21 June 1825, that he doubted the chances of Dent being succeeded by one of his sons or his son-in-law Lieutenant-Colonel Daniel Mackinnon of the Coldstream Guards, the younger brother of William Alexander Mackinnon*. Garland agreed with his son’s judgement that

our best way is to consider you quite independent of every sort except Mr. Dent the father ... I have to two or three said so much, and at present it does not seem needful to do more, but if clearly understood that Mr. Dent the elder does not stand again, it would behove us to make known ... that we have no desire to do more than secure your seat. The possessor of the Canford property will give a much stronger interest than may at first appear, and from what I have heard Mr. Ponsonby is disposed to make the most of it, which is natural enough.25

Dent announced his retirement in September, when a dissolution was expected, and Lester, Ponsonby, Spurrier and Sturt all canvassed. With the support of a portion of the corporators, a committee was established to campaign for the restoration of the franchise to the commonalty, and the county paper commented that

we heartily wish that this attempt may prove successful, as their claims are certainly founded on equity; for a town of 7,000 inhabitants cannot be said to be properly represented when its Members are elected by about 80 resident and nearly 40 non-resident burgesses.26

Lester and Ponsonby spoke in favour of the establishment of a railway between Radstock and Poole at a meeting in Wareham, 26 Nov., and were present at a dinner in Poole in honour of the duke of Gloucester, 30 Nov. 1825.27

When the dissolution occurred in mid-1826 Lester was considered safe and the second seat was fought over by Sturt, who promised to bring to the town his commercial and practical experience, and Ponsonby, who stressed the community of interests between Canford and Poole. At one point Lester and Sturt were said to be ‘certain of being palma victoriae.’28 Yet on the morning of 12 June, Ponsonby, stating that he felt ‘quite secure’ of his success that day, thanked Lord Fitzwilliam for the offer of a seat at Malton, and explained that ‘whilst I felt deeply the kindness of your intention, I thought myself the more called upon to make every exertion in order to leave you at liberty’ to dispose of that seat. His tenants assembled to escort him into the town, and he boasted that ‘all the mob is with me, except a party of 60 or 70 strand men, who swear they will duck us’.29 On the hustings, Lester, proposed by his relation Joseph Garland, rested his claims on his 15 years’ experience; Ponsonby, nominated by Spurrier, stated his sympathies with opposition; and Sturt, introduced by the Poole banker and leading Tory corporator George Welch Ledgard, expressed his support for ministers and, like Ponsonby, who was his first cousin’s husband, regretted that a conflict had arisen between them. After a poll had taken place, Lester and Ponsonby were returned, on the merchant oligarchy and local squirearchy interests respectively, and nothing came of Sturt’s threat to petition.30 His expenses between September 1825 and August 1826 amounted to £506, and included payment, as thugs, to ‘57 men for their attendance at the election at 6s. each’.31 Ponsonby was elected a freeman, 5 July 1826.32

Of the 127 names listed in the manuscript poll book, two were peers (the dukes of Cumberland and Gloucester), eight were marked ‘absent’ and 21 others were not annotated. The tendered votes of John Nicholson Durell, coast waiter, and Thomas Keates Allen, the comptroller’s clerk, were disqualified and left undecided, and, in a sign that the government interest was in any case much diminished, none of the ten other customs officers listed in Pigot’s Commercial Directory for 1823-4 voted at this election. Of the 94 voters polled, 82 (or 87 per cent) voted for Lester, whose supporters included himself and ten Garlands, compared to 56 and 35 per cent for Ponsonby and Sturt. There were nine plumpers for Lester, seven for Ponsonby and four for Sturt, and one split for Ponsonby and Sturt. That the contest was really between the second and third placed candidates was shown by the fact that Lester received most of his votes in splits, namely 45 with Ponsonby and 28 with Sturt; the disparity accounting for 17 of the majority of 20 that Ponsonby enjoyed over Sturt. Forty-four of the 50 voters resident in Poole voted for Lester, indicating his high level of local and corporation support, but he also received votes from 17 of the 20 Dorset voters and 21 of the 24 out-county electors. Although Ponsonby and Sturt each received nine votes from those living in Dorset, Ponsonby had a clear lead among Poole residents (29 to 16) and out-county electors (15 to eight).33

In January 1827 five burgesses, led by a local gentleman, Joseph Barter, signed an open letter calling for the franchise to be extended to ratepayers, but a meeting was refused by the mayor, Ledgard.34 Petitions for repeal of the Test Acts from various Protestant Dissenters in Poole were presented to the Commons, 9, 14, 16 May 1827, and (by Lester) 20 Feb. 1828. Others were brought up from the maltsters against the Malt Act by Edward Berkeley Portman, the county Member, 22 Feb., and from the merchants, traders and inhabitants against the Small Notes Act by Lester, 2 May. The petition of the Catholics for their relief was presented by Ponsonby, 8 May 1828.35 Ledgard moved the approval of an anti-Catholic petition at a town meeting, 3 Feb. 1829, when the corporator William Jolliffe’s amendment in support of emancipation was defeated. The petition, which had nearly 800 signatures, was presented to the Commons by Henry Bankes, the other county Member, 13 Feb., but pro-Catholic petitions from at least 140 inhabitants were brought up in the Lords, 12 Mar., and the Commons, 13 Mar. Another anti-Catholic petition was presented to the Lords, 7 Apr. 1829.36 A petition for reform of the criminal law was presented by Wilbraham Egerton, Member for Cheshire, 17 Mar., and Lester brought up one for mitigation of the punishment for forgery, 27 Apr. 1830.37

At the general election that summer, there was a rumour of a challenge from a ‘gentleman of great property and intimately acquainted with the West India trade’, and many electors were supposed to have refrained from making promises to the sitting Members. However, neither Mackinnon, the government candidate, nor another army officer, one Colonel Jones (perhaps of 7 Upper Gloucester Street, London), stayed in Poole to stand a contest and, as was expected, Lester (nominated by Joseph Garland) and Ponsonby (by Jolliffe), were returned unopposed. During the reading of the election precept, which referred to the ‘mayor, bailiffs, burgesses and commonalty’, there were cries of ‘commonalty for ever’, and in their speeches both Members expressed sympathy with the inhabitants’ cause. After a day of disturbances, a glass dropped from a window of the Antelope into the crowd outside precipitated a violent attack on the inn. It was reported that of the 113 burgesses, only 38 were resident, and that a mere 28 paid rates and taxes in the town.38 In August 1830 the deposed French King, Charles X, landed at Poole, where he was well received, and he resided at Lulworth Castle, the home of the Weld family, until October.39 The ‘Friends of Freedom of Election’ met at the London Tavern, 6 Aug., when the president George Kemp, a Newfoundland merchant and head of the Whigs in Poole, was well supported in his call for the extension of the franchise. The reformers had evidently gained ground, for a meeting of the corporation chaired by Jolliffe, the mayor, 1 Sept., agreed to make concessions to the commonalty. At a special meeting on the 16th, 48 burgesses, including Lester, each nominated two additional freemen, which increased their number by 96, though as about 30 of them were minors the total number of electors rose to only about 160, and the merchants still remained the dominating force. The Members and Taylor attended a dinner to celebrate this enlargement, 28 Sept., but many inhabitants were not satisfied and continued to press for the admission of all the resident householders.40 The admission fees, which amounted to over £2,000, were used to pay for improvements to the High Street.41 In November 1830 large numbers of ‘specials’ were sworn in to deal with the possible spread of the ‘Swing’ riots to Poole.42

Anti-slavery petitions were presented to the Lords, 11, 22, 30 Nov. 1830, 18 Apr. 1831, and the Commons, 15, 25 Nov. 1830, 28 Mar., by Lester, who also brought up petitions from the merchants and shipowners against alteration of the duties on colonial products, 25 Feb., and the trustees of the merchant seamen’s fund against the payment of contributions to Greenwich Hospital, 24 Mar. 1831.43 Following a requisition, a meeting was held on 10 Dec., when Kemp, Jolliffe and others spoke in favour of parliamentary reform, and the ensuing petitions were presented to the Commons by Lester, 17 Dec., and to the Lords by the home secretary, Lord Melbourne, 21 Dec. 1830.44 Kemp chaired a meeting of the inhabitant householders at the London Tavern, 11 Jan. 1831, and a committee was formed to lobby for the franchise to be changed to scot and lot. With a population of over 4,000, Poole retained its seats under the Grey ministry’s reform proposals, though the enfranchisement of the £10 householders was expected greatly to increase the size of the electorate. A meeting on 7 Mar. agreed addresses to ministers and the king in favour of the measure, which were presented to Grey, 10 Mar., and William IV, 16 Mar., by the Poole physician John Taylor. At the request of 58 burgesses, a meeting of the corporation, 10 Mar., agreed reform petitions, which were presented to the Commons by Lester and to the Lords by the duke of Devonshire, 14 Mar.45 The Members and Portman were thanked for their reform votes at a dinner in Poole, 7 Apr., when they concurred with Kemp’s speech in praise of the bill and supported the inhabitants’ claims, Lester declaring that little

did he think when, at the last election, he said he would as soon shake a householder by the hand as a corporator, that the time was so little distant, when he should have to come before the great body of his fellow townsmen, and ask them, if they thought him still worthy of their confidence.46

At the general election of 1831, Ponsonby, well aware of the ‘machinations of the party opposed to me’, again stood on his own interest and Lester had the support of the reformers on the corporation, but a minority of Tories split away and attempted an opposition. Their choice of a man of ‘highly distinguished character and abilities’ turned out to be the London barrister Serjeant Thomas Wilde*, a moderate reformer. He declined to force a contest because, as he explained in his address of 12 Apr., the sitting Members’ views on reform ‘appear to correspond to my own’. Therefore, ‘inhabitant householders anticipating that the measure will pass into a law and thus ensure to them their elective franchise, of which they have for so many years been deprived, unanimously joined the corporation’ in returning Lester and Ponsonby.47 Such was the prevailing reform spirit that a meeting on 25 Apr. pledged to support Portman as a candidate for the county, and John Calcraft* was well received when he canvassed as a reformer, 29 Apr., while Ponsonby informed George Bankes*, 4 May 1831, that had his father, the anti-reformer Henry Bankes*, attempted to canvass Poole, he would have been met by the ‘violence of a highly excited populace’.48 Of the 131 Poole freeholders who voted at the Dorset contest, 121 split for Portman and Calcraft, four split for Portman and Bankes, four plumped for Bankes and two plumped for Calcraft.49

A petition to the Lords in favour of the reform bill was agreed at a meeting in Poole, 21 Sept., and was presented, 30 Sept. 1831. The inhabitants enthusiastically endorsed Ponsonby’s decision to vacate his seat in order to stand in the county by-election caused by the death of Calcraft in September, and promises of votes and financial contributions were forthcoming.50 A committee was formed of Joseph Gulston Garland, the mayor, Kemp and others, to ensure that Ponsonby’s replacement at Poole would be a reformer, and it was soon reported that ‘squibs are flying about from all parties, and there is every prospect that the ensuing contest will be one of the severest ever known in the town and will give rise to greater acrimony and hostility than any previous occurrence’. About ten candidates offered or had their names suggested, among whom were Kemp; Sturt; John Melville of 16 Upper Harley Street, London, who had aspirations at Lyme Regis; Sir William Francis Eliott of Stobs, Roxburghshire; the trainee barrister Francis Charles Knowles, the defeated candidate at Shaftesbury in 1830 and 1831; John Rutter, the Shaftesbury printer and popular party leader; Benjamin Rotch†, a London barrister, and Sir John Key†, the lord mayor of London.51 William Holmes*, the Tory whip, informed Mrs. Arbuthnot that opposition were sending ‘a man to Poole to annoy the reformers’, and this was probably the ostensible reformer but otherwise Tory Charles Augustus Tulk*.52 As their candidate, ministers chose the army officer Sir John Byng of 6 Portman Square and Bellaghy, County Londonderry, the brother of George Byng*, and he probably benefited from Ponsonby’s tacit support. On the hustings, 6 Oct., Byng declared himself in favour of the bill, and Tulk, who denied being an anti-reformer and stressed his local connections, was supported by another native of Poole, George Richard Robinson*.53 Of the 209 names listed in the manuscript poll book, there were 31 minors and 80 others (including Lester and Ponsonby) did not vote, so that Byng (who was made a freeman, 7 Dec.) was elected by a majority of 14 after 98 freemen had been polled.54 In the Dorset by-election, 156 of the 180 Poole freeholders voted for Ponsonby and only 24 for his anti-reform opponent Lord Ashley*.55 The loss of the reform bill in the Lords and Ponsonby’s defeat led to angry disturbances in Poole, including an attack on Longfleet House, the home of the coal merchant Thomas Gaden, who had voted for Ashley. Following a meeting on 22 Oct. 1831, a reform address to the king received over 1,700 signatures, and a subscription of over £400 was collected to assist Ponsonby’s petition.56 Doubts were raised about the validity of the Dorset votes of the Poole freeholders, since Poole was a county of itself, but this did not become an issue, especially as the usual practice of allowing such votes was continued under the Reform Act.57

The local Tories rallied to Tulk, who attended a dinner in his honour, 14 Feb. 1832. Under the revised reform bill, Poole, with about 350 £10 houses and assessed taxes of £1,700, remained unchanged. Even among the reformers there was, however, great hostility to the proposed enlargement of the borough, as it was expected that the inclusion of Ponsonby’s property would turn Poole into a ‘close Whig borough’. Meetings were held to protest against the boundary changes, 21 Feb. and 1 Mar., and a memorial was sent to ministers claiming that there were as many as 638 £10 houses within the borough, so that there was no reason to increase its size. The difficulty was overcome, as Lester informed his constituents by letter in June, by taking in the whole of Canford and part of Hamworthy parishes, presumably with the intention of diluting Ponsonby’s influence.58 The Whigs were also active, urging Portman not to resign his seat in April, and forwarding another reform address to the king, with over 600 signatures, during the ministerial crisis of May. The passage of the bill was greeted with celebrations in Poole, and at a meeting on 9 June the committee for the promotion of the inhabitant householders was formally disbanded. There were 412 registered electors at the general election in December 1832, when Lester, the mercantile and corporation Member, and Byng, under Ponsonby’s reform interest, were victorious over Tulk, who was also nominally a Liberal.59 The Municipal Corporations Act produced an outbreak of highly partisan quarrels in the internal politics of Poole, but the parliamentary seats usually went to Liberals.60 Lester retired at the dissolution of 1834, when Tulk finally won the seat, and a few months later Byng was ennobled and was succeeded at Poole by his son George Stevens Byng*. The Canford interest enabled Ponsonby to have his son Charles Frederick Ashley Ponsonby returned between 1837 and 1841, but in the 1840s he sold his estates to Sir Josiah John Guest*. The representation of Poole was reduced to one seat in 1868 and abolished in 1885.

Author: Stephen Farrell


  • 1. Pigot’s Commercial Dir. (1830), 288; Oldfield, Rep. Hist. (1816), iii. 352-3; PP (1831), xvi. 91; (1831-2), xxxviii. 143; J. Hutchins, Dorset, i (1861), 1-2.
  • 2. E. Gosse, Life of Gosse, 7-8.
  • 3. Western Flying Post, 30 Oct. 1820; Dorset Co. Chron. 20 Jan. 1825, 1 Apr. 1830; W. Mate, Then and Now, 119-24.
  • 4. C.N. Cullingford, Hist. Poole, 109-28; D. Beamish, J. Dockerill and J. Hillier, Pride of Poole, 67-68; PP (1835), xxiv. 667.
  • 5. No corporation minute books survive for this period, but there are extensive archives in Dorset RO, Poole borough recs. DC/PL; and some related material remains in the care of Poole Mus. Service.
  • 6. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 568; xxxviii. 143, 145; (1835), xxiv. 660-1.
  • 7. D.F. Beamish, ‘Parl. and Municipal Hist. of Borough of Poole’ (University of Southampton M.Phil. thesis, 1982), 129-30; PP (1835), xxiv. 661; Poole borough recs. S1066.
  • 8. Beamish, 145; Black Bk. (1820), 435; (1831), 241.
  • 9. Oldfield, iii. 355-70; J. Sydenham, Hist. Poole (1839), 259-73.
  • 10. Beamish, 129, 132; Poole borough recs. CLA43, 44; PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 568.
  • 11. The municipal poll lists are in Poole borough recs. ME54-99; S1663-80.
  • 12. Cullingford, 128-38.
  • 13. Oldfield, iii. 371; Beamish, 132, 146-63; HP Commons, 1715-54, i. 235-6; HP Commons, 1754-90, i. 267-71; HP Commons, 1790-1832, ii. 134-9.
  • 14. Oldfield, Key (1820), 111-12.
  • 15. Poole borough recs. S1658; Beamish, 163-4; Salisbury Jnl. 13 Mar. 1820.
  • 16. Dorset RO, Lester-Garland mss D/LEG F23, ff. 55-60.
  • 17. Western Flying Post, 27 Nov., 18 Dec. 1820.
  • 18. Salisbury Jnl. 11 Dec. 1820, 22, 29 Jan., 19, 26 Feb. 1821; Poole borough recs. S1138; S1202-1203; Pride of Poole, 46, 87; CJ, lxxvi. 15.
  • 19. CJ, lxxvi. 461; LJ, liv. 561; The Times, 23 June, 3 July 1821.
  • 20. Lester-Garland mss F23, f. 86.
  • 21. CJ, lxxviii. 285, 326; lxxix. 81, 115; lxxxi. 86.
  • 22. Western Flying Post, 21 Feb.; The Times, 25 Feb., 7 May 1825; CJ, lxxx. 123, 382.
  • 23. Pride of Poole, 108-9; Beamish, 166.
  • 24. Salisbury Jnl. 18 July; Lansdowne mss, Lansdowne to Rice, 2 Oct.; The Times, 9 Oct. 1824.
  • 25. Lester-Garland mss F23, f. 113.
  • 26. Dorset Co. Chron. 22, 29 Sept.; Salisbury Jnl. 26 Sept., 3 Oct. 1825.
  • 27. Dorset Co. Chron. 1 Dec. 1825.
  • 28. Ibid. 1, 8 June; Salisbury Jnl. 5 June 1826; Pride of Poole, 112.
  • 29. Fitzwilliam mss 125/1.
  • 30. Dorset Co. Chron. 15 June 1826; Beamish, 144-5, 165-6, 290.
  • 31. Dorset RO, photocopy 348 (from Crichel House mss); Pride of Poole, 36, 38.
  • 32. Poole borough recs. CLA45.
  • 33. Ibid. S1660; Poole Mus. Service, printed poll list; Pride of Poole, 114; Beamish, 165.
  • 34. Poole Mus. Service, printed address; Pride of Poole, 89-93; Beamish, 167.
  • 35. CJ, lxxxii. 444, 455, 464; lxxxiii. 87, 96, 304-5, 332; The Times, 21, 23 Feb., 9 May 1828.
  • 36. Dorset Co. Chron. 5, 12, 19 Feb., 2, 9 Apr.; Salisbury Jnl. 23 Mar. 1829; CJ, lxxxiv. 28, 133; LJ, lxi. 180, 365.
  • 37. CJ, lxxxv. 188, 336.
  • 38. Dorset Co. Chron. 29 Apr., 8, 15, 22, 29 July, 5 Aug.; Sherborne Jnl. 5 Aug. 1830; Mate, 41-42; Beamish, 167-8.
  • 39. Dorset Co. Chron. 26 Aug., 2 Sept., 14, 21 Oct. 1830.
  • 40. Ibid. 12 Aug., 9, 23, 30 Sept.; Sherborne Jnl. 7 Oct. 1830; Poole Mus. Service, printed list of burgesses admitted; Pride of Poole, 92, 126; Mate, 76-78; Beamish, 130, 145.
  • 41. PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 568; (1835), xxiv. 665.
  • 42. E. J. Hobsbawm and G. Rudé, Captain Swing (1985), 218.
  • 43. LJ, lxiii. 38, 117, 140, 456; CJ, lxxxvi. 74, 132, 445, 307, 431.
  • 44. Dorset Co. Chron. 16 Dec. 1830; CJ, lxxxvi. 186-7; LJ, lxiii. 188.
  • 45. Dorset Co. Chron. 13 Jan., 10, 17, 24, 31 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 372; LJ, lxiii. 319; Mate, 66-67; Pride of Poole, 94; Beamish, 168-9.
  • 46. Dorset Co. Chron. 31 Mar., 14 Apr. 1831.
  • 47. Ibid. 24, 31 Mar., 14, 21, 28 Apr., 5 May; Spectator, 1 Jan.; Dorset RO, Bankes mss D/BKL, Ponsonby to Bankes, 4 May 1831; Mate, 72-73, 75-76; Beamish, 170.
  • 48. Dorset Co. Chron. 28 Apr., 5, 12, 19, 26 May 1831; Bankes mss.
  • 49. Dorset Pollbook (1831), 40-43.
  • 50. Dorset Co. Chron. 15, 29 Sept. 1831; LJ, lxiii. 1026.
  • 51. Dorset Co. Chron. 22, 29 Sept.; The Times, 23 Sept., 1 Oct. 1831.
  • 52. Arbuthnot Corresp. 150.
  • 53. Salisbury Jnl. 19, 26 Sept., 17, 24 Oct.; Sherborne Jnl. 6, 13 Oct. 1831; Beamish, 171-2.
  • 54. Poole borough recs. CLA45; S1661; Beamish, 172-3.
  • 55. Dorset Pollbook (Sept.-Oct. 1831), 34-37.
  • 56. Wellington mss WP1/1201/28; Sherborne Jnl. 27 Oct., 3 Nov.; Dorset Co. Chron. 27 Oct., 3, 24 Nov. 1831; Pride of Poole, 116; Mate, 102, 104.
  • 57. Wellington mss WP1/1205/2; Sherborne Jnl. 8 Mar. 1832; Sydenham, 290.
  • 58. Dorset Co. Chron. 23 Feb., 1, 8 Mar., 14 June; Salisbury Jnl. 18 June 1832; PP (1831-2), xxxvi. 391; xxxviii. 143-4; Pride of Poole, 94-97; Hutchins, i. 25.
  • 59. Dorset Co. Chron. 5 Apr., 17, 31 May, 7, 14 June, 6, 13, 20, 27 Dec.; Sherborne Jnl. 24 May, 7, 14 June 1832; Mate, 109-10, 112-13; Beamish, 187-8, 234-5, 243-6.
  • 60. Pride of Poole, 121-8, 135; Mate, 130; Sydenham, 234.