GILBERT (formerly GIDDY), Davies (1767-1839), of Tredrea, Cornw.; Eastbourne, Suss. and 45 Bridge Street, Mdx.

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



26 May 1804 - 14 Apr. 1806
1806 - 1832

Family and Education

b. 6 Mar. 1767, o. surv. s. of Rev. Edward Giddy, curate of St. Erth, Cornw., and Catherine, da. and event. h. of John Davies of Tredrea, St. Erth. educ. Penzance g.s. 1775-9; by his fa. 1779-82; Donne’s mathematical acad., Bristol 1782-5; M. Temple 1783; Pembroke, Oxf. 1785. m. 18 Apr. 1808, Mary Anne, da. of Thomas Gilbert of Lewes, Suss., 2s. (1 d.v.p.) 4da. (1 d.v.p.). suc. fa. 1814; wife’s uncle Charles Gilbert of Eastbourne 1816 and took name of Gilbert 10 Dec. 1816. d. 24 Dec. 1839.

Offices Held

Sheriff, Cornw. 1792-3.

Member, bd. of agriculture 1808-22, vice-pres. 1815; pres. R. Soc. 1827-30.


Gilbert inherited his maternal grandfather’s Cornish farm on the death of his father in 1814,1 but financial security only came with his succession to a considerable estate near Eastbourne through his wife’s uncle in 1816.2 In addition to his literary and antiquarian interests, he was a ‘first class mathematician’ whose knowledge of the ‘theory of mechanics’ was such that he was frequently consulted by the leading engineers and industrialists of the day. As a public figure, he was the prototype of the ‘new civil servant of Georgian and Regency England’, a ‘professional committeeman and ... administrative technician’ who immersed himself in the details of practical issues, the solution of which helped to facilitate industrial development. He ‘understood the role of the scientists’ in dealing with these issues and in 1819 was appointed vice-president of the Royal Society. However, he was ‘reluctant to face the social changes’ that industrialization implied, and adhered to a conservative philosophy which he derived from Newton and Burke.3 He had sat for Bodmin since 1806 on the 1st Baron De Dunstanville’s interest and was returned unopposed for the fifth time in 1820, although he was considered sufficiently ‘respectable’ in Sussex landed circles to be mentioned as a possible candidate for that county.4

He continued to attend assiduously, giving general support to Lord Liverpool’s ministry, making frequent contributions to debate and serving on several select committees each session. He declared himself a ‘decided advocate for the principle of representation upon property rather than population’, 19 May 1820, and warned that the transfer of Grampound’s seats to Leeds would be the ‘first step towards a new-fangled and dangerous system’ that would ‘speedily sweep away’ the aristocracy and the monarchy. On 5 June he moved to extend Grampound’s franchise to freeholders of the surrounding hundreds of Pyder and Powder and to remove it from those electors who were guilty of taking bribes, but the debate was adjourned. He was a minority teller for the second reading of the Sussex election bill, 23 June. He introduced the population of Great Britain bill, to conduct a census, 16 June;5 it gained royal assent, 24 July. He introduced a turnpike trusts returns bill, to obtain an account of their funds and expenditure, 20 June, and argued that ‘some measure of regulation’ was needed to prevent the misapplication of money, 12 July;6 it received royal assent, 24 July. He justified his metropolis turnpike roads bill, 30 June, on the ground that the roads around London were ‘the very worst in the kingdom’ because of the ‘inefficiency of the small trusts’ managing them. He wanted to see the construction and management of roads ‘conducted upon the most scientific principles’, and proposed that the trusts within a ten-mile radius of London be consolidated under new commissioners; his bill failed to get through committee. He was a majority teller against amendments to the Marriage Act amendment bill, 30 June. He explained that the minutes of the finance committee’s inquiry into the audit office had excluded some evidence that might ‘expose private differences without producing any sufficient result to the public’, 12 July 1820, and argued that the office’s staff should be increased. As a commissioner inquiring into the prevention of forged banknotes he commended the ‘ingenuity of the plan now adopting’, 1 Feb. 1821. He divided against the forgery punishment mitigation bill, 23 May. On the presentation of a Bodmin petition to restore Queen Caroline’s name to the liturgy, 5 Feb., he mentioned that the corporation and ‘every individual who was usually called a respectable inhabitant’ had signed a loyal address to the king.7 Next day he voted in defence of ministers’ conduct towards the queen. He introduced a patents protection bill, 8 Feb.,8 which failed its second reading, 22 Feb. He maintained that the present representative system reconciled ‘the existence and co-action of a powerful democratic body with a monarchical form of government’, 12 Feb., and moved the same amendment to the Grampound disfranchisement bill as in the previous session. According to a Whig diarist, ‘the sense of the House’ was so hostile that ministers did not dare support him, and he was defeated by 126-66.9 He objected to the proposal that Grampound electors not convicted of bribery should be allowed to vote in the county, 2 Mar., as the ‘respectability of the ... freeholders’ would be tainted by association; he thought they should be connected instead with the neighbouring borough of Tregony.10 He divided against Russell’s reform resolutions, 9 May. In the debate on agricultural distress, 22 Feb., he expressed the hope that the government would not ‘adopt so fatal an experiment’ as a paper currency.11 He voted against Maberly’s resolution on the state of the revenue, 6 Mar., and repeal of the additional malt duty, 3 Apr. In reintroducing his metropolis roads bill, 27 Feb., he denied that he intended to place the turnpike trusts under government control, as ‘there could be no surer mode ... of opening the door to jobs of all descriptions’, and argued that his proposal to divide the trusts into three districts would help to achieve ‘economy in procuring ... materials’ and encourage the ‘employment of scientific aid’. He complained of a petition from the trustees of certain roads requesting that they be heard by counsel, 11 Apr., observing that ‘the whole opposition’ to his bill ‘arose from trustees and agents’ rather than from ‘any portion of the public’, and that when he had agreed to refer the bill to a committee he had not expected to be ‘placed under the necessity of attending to counsel or attorneys’;12 the bill was defeated at the report stage, 24 May. He divided against Catholic relief, 28 Feb., although the Grenvillite Charles Williams Wynn* claimed soon afterwards that he was ‘completely turned’ on the subject and likely to vote in favour; he did not.13 He warned that the bill to abate the nuisance caused by steam engines would have ‘very vexatious and ruinous consequences’ for the Cornish mining interest, 30 Apr.,14 but thought it might be applied to London and other urban centres, 7 May 1821. In a gloomy letter to a clergyman at this time, he remarked that ‘my general principles of politics are not changed, but the circumstances of the times are changed around us and my anticipations are far from bright’.15

It was thought to be Gilbert who declared, 7 Feb. 1822, that he had ‘no objection to some strong measures for ... putting down the present outrages’ in Ireland, but warned that ‘unless ... accompanied by measures of conciliation’ they would merely ‘increase the irritation that prevailed in that country’. Convinced that peace could never be achieved without the ‘total abolition’ of the tithes system, he argued against giving ‘extensive power’ to the magistrates, as many of them were not ‘respectable’; to opposition cheers, he maintained that ‘in Ireland justice was bought and sold’.16 He divided against more extensive tax reductions, 11, 21 Feb., and abolition of one of the joint-postmasterships, 13 Mar. He was reportedly shut out of the division on inquiry into diplomatic expenditure, 15 May.17 He opposed a reduced duty on corn, 3 June,18 and warned that the importation bill would not ‘prevent foreign flour from being smuggled [for] home consumption’, 10 June. He congratulated ministers for reducing the salt duty, 11 June, but thought it would be ‘extremely beneficial to the agricultural interest’ if it could be repealed. He stated, amidst laughter, that he would support a government proposal for repeal but not one emanating from other Members.19 In supporting the Marriage Act amendment bill, 20 May, he gave examples to show that Parliament had passed bills with retrospective effect. He considered the laws requiring labourers to be paid in money rather than provisions to be ‘inefficacious and unnecessary’, 17 June, and was content to rely on ‘the competition of trade’ to protect their interests. He voted against inquiry into the lord advocate’s conduct towards the Scottish press, 24 June, and referral of the Calcutta bankers’ petition to a select committee, 4 July. He looked forward to the ‘speedy’ dismantling of London Bridge, which was ‘disgraceful and dangerous’, and its replacement with ‘one which ... would be worthy of this great city’, 12 July 1822.20 That autumn he completed negotiations to assume the patronage of Bodmin jointly with the 3rd marquess of Hertford, the Tory lord warden of the stannaries.21 He divided against inquiry into the borough franchise, 20 Feb., and reform in Scotland, 2 June 1823. He believed that an ‘efficient sinking fund’ would be ‘productive of the best results to public credit’ and was preferable to tax reductions, 3 Mar. He voted against further tax reductions that day, repeal of the duty on houses valued at under £5, 10 Mar., restriction of the sinking fund, 13 Mar., and repeal of the assessed taxes, 18 Mar. He divided in the minority for the usury laws repeal bill, 27 June. He defended the weights and measures bill, which aimed to ‘establish a perfect theoretical standard’, 21 Apr.22 He voted against repeal of the Foreign Enlistment Act, 16 Apr., and inquiry into delays in chancery, 5 June. He divided in the minority to introduce trial by jury to New South Wales, 7 July 1823, when he supported an amendment to allow army and navy officers to judge cases. As chairman of the committee considering the London Bridge bill, he succeeded this session in overcoming government resistance to advancing the necessary loan.23 On 18 Feb. 1824 he introduced a recovery of penalties bill, to facilitate the collection of fines imposed by magistrates and the execution of warrants; it gained royal assent, 31 Mar. He voted against the production of papers regarding Catholics holding public office, 19 Feb., and supported the Catholic marriages (England) bill, 13 Apr. He divided for the Irish insurrection bill, 14 June. He argued that repeal of the duty on salt would lead to its wider use in agriculture and industry, 23 Feb., and believed that repeal of the usury laws would be ‘highly advantageous to the landed interest’, 31 Mar., voting accordingly, 8 Apr. He supported the weights and measures bill, 25 Feb. He divided against reform of Edinburgh’s representation, 26 Feb. He claimed that the ordnance survey of Britain had ‘raised the country in the eyes of the scientific world’, 27 Feb. He presented a Bodmin inhabitants’ petition for inquiry into the trial of the Methodist missionary John Smith in Demerara, 27 May 1824.24 He presented Penzance and Truro petitions in favour of the county courts bill, 24 Feb., and ones from Penzance and Bodmin for repeal of the coastwise coal duty, 24 Feb., 2 Mar. 1825.25 He divided for Catholic relief, 21 Apr., 10 May. He welcomed the government’s adoption of the quarantine bill, 13 May. He voted for the financial provision for the duke of Cumberland, 30 May, 6, 10 June. He advised that the West Looe burgesses’ complaint about the infringement of their voting rights should be left to the courts, 20 June 1825.26 He supported the home secretary Peel’s plan to amend the law regarding theft from gardens and hothouses, 27 Apr., and voted against Russell’s resolutions to curb electoral bribery, 26 May 1826. He was returned unopposed for Bodmin at the general election that summer.27

He considered the Tregony election return illegal, but did not blame the sheriff, 24 Nov. 1826. He presented two Sussex petitions against altering the corn laws, 19 Feb., 2 Apr.,28 argued that the imperial measure should be retained to ‘preserve ... uniformity’, 8 Mar., and favoured 62s. as the pivot price, 21 Mar. 1827. He introduced a copyhold estates bill, to remove certain difficulties in the disposition of copyhold property by will, 19 Feb.;29 it passed the Commons but not the Lords. He divided against Catholic relief, 6 Mar. He voted for the spring guns bill, 23 Mar. He supported the Sussex elections bill, 2 Apr., but advised its withdrawal as the select committee on county election expenses rendered it ‘unnecessary’, 9 May; he voted for Lord Althorp’s resulting bill, 28 May. He presented a petition from the freeholders of the hundreds of Kerrier and Penwith, adjoining Penryn, for their inclusion in that borough rather than the transfer of its seats to Manchester, 12 June, but had little hope of success.30 During the course of the year, Gilbert was embroiled in the manoeuvres to find a successor to Sir Humphry Davy as president of the Royal Society. He attempted to prepare the way for Peel’s election, but encountered resistance from professional scientists such as Charles Babbage and William Herschell, who were opposed to the chair being filled by a gentleman amateur with political connections, and from Whig members of the council such as Henry Brougham*. Peel’s friend John Wilson Croker* exclaimed that he had ‘no patience with that fool Davies Gilbert’, who was ‘really a worthy man, but ... so timid and ignorant in anything that partakes of business that no reliance is to be placed on what he says, or what he will do’. In the event, Peel withdrew and Gilbert accepted the presidency as a compromise candidate, November 1827.31 He introduced a customary tenures bill, to authorize the devising of real estates held in this form, 19 Feb. 1828; it failed to get into committee. He declared himself ‘friendly’ to the division of counties bill, 27 Feb. He voted against extending the East Retford franchise to Bassetlaw freeholders, 21 Mar., but supported a similar extension in the case of Penryn, 24 Mar., as it would include Penzance and Redruth; he denied that Cornwall was over-represented, pointing out that its boroughs currently only returned six Cornishmen. He believed there could be no ‘grosser misapplication of corporate funds than to devote them to the election of MPs’, 8 July, and voted for the corporate funds bill, 10 July. He argued that turnpike bills ‘ought to be free from fees’, 21 Apr., and wanted to see the ‘greatest possible simplification of all ... roads bills’. On 5 June he presented a Penzance corporation petition against the alehouses licensing bill, which gave a concurrent jurisdiction to county magistrates, contrary to the borough’s charter. He divided for the usury laws repeal bill, 19 June. He voted with the Wellington ministry against reducing the salary of the lieutenant-general of the ordnance, 4 July, when he said that he would not oppose the dissolution of the board of longitude, but thought it could still have done useful work. He saw ‘little advantage’ to Cornish miners in the revision of the lead duties, 15 July. He spoke ‘warmly’ of the need for a sinking fund to reduce the national debt, 17 July, and argued that a property tax, to which he would contribute ‘cheerfully’, must be levied to pay for it. He expressed a ‘very deep interest’ in the New South Wales bill, 20 June 1828, as that colony was ‘destined to spread the English language’ to the East. He thought ‘trial by jury could not yet be introduced with safety’, as there were too many recent convicts, but he favoured a representative assembly and the enfranchisement of all settlers and the sons of freed convicts. In February 1829 Planta, the patronage secretary, listed him as likely to side ‘with government’ for Catholic emancipation. His votes for the measure, 6, 30 Mar., may have been influenced by Hertford’s decision to support it, although fears were expressed that this could cause problems with his constituents.32 He advised George Byng to withdraw his county bridges bill and introduce a local one for Middlesex, as it might be ‘inapplicable to other parts of the country’, 25 Mar. He seconded the motion for a select committee on patents, 9 Apr., observing that patentees experienced ‘many disadvantages ... under the existing law’, but he warned Parliament to ‘proceed cautiously’ on the subject. He enquired whether the government would allow the London Zoological Society to extend its grounds, 19 May 1829. He divided against the enfranchisement of Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, 23 Feb., and Jewish emancipation, 5 Apr., 17 May 1830. He favoured opening the British Museum reading rooms for ‘as long as daylight lasts’, 8 Mar., and believed it was ‘impossible any institution can be better conducted’. He again introduced the population of Great Britain bill, 30 Apr., which gained royal assent, 23 June. John Cam Hobhouse* deplored his ‘shabby’ conduct in voting against Hume’s motion on the vacation of offices following the demise of the crown, 3 May.33 He objected to the government’s plan to make the loss of weight of gold coins through usage fall on those who sent them to the mint for recoining, 4 June. He voted against reducing the grant for South American missions, 7 June, and judges’ salaries, 7 July. He divided against abolishing the death penalty for forgery, 7 June. He urged that Cornish miners be exempted from the operation of the labourers’ wages bill, 3 July, and while welcoming the concession on this point, 5 July, he warned that many workmen would lose their livelihoods if the truck system was abolished. He suspected that Littleton was ‘acting upon the suggestion of some opulent manufacturers’ in Staffordshire, who calculated that the bill’s ‘effect will be to raise the price of iron, in which they deal’. He was again returned unopposed for Bodmin at the general election that summer.34 The continuing tensions within the Royal Society culminated in the publication of Babbage’s Reflections on the Decline of Science (1830), which contained a personal attack on Gilbert’s cliquish style of management and desire to maintain the body’s social exclusivity. He decided in August 1830 to retire from the presidency and paved the way for the duke of Sussex to succeed him.35

Gilbert’s sense of impending social danger was reinforced in the autumn of 1830 when hayricks on his Sussex estate were burned.36 He was listed among the ministry’s ‘friends’, but was absent from the crucial division on the civil list, 15 Nov. In December he wrote to Hertford that he would ‘probably retire before another election’, as he suspected that ‘for many years to come this country will not be worth living in’.37 He said he was now convinced that the truck bill would be ‘most beneficial’, subject to special provision for the mining districts, 14 Dec. 1830. He presented and endorsed Bodmin and Penzance petitions for repeal of the coal duties, 8 Feb. 1831. He divided against the second reading of the Grey ministry’s reform bill, which proposed to reduce Bodmin’s representation to one seat, 22 Mar. It was rumoured in early April that he had since been converted to the measure,38 but he voted for Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment, 19 Apr. 1831. At the ensuing general election he was returned unopposed for Bodmin after a hostile faction within the corporation decided not to force a contest.39 He wrote to his old friend Josiah Wedgwood in June 1831 that he was ‘fully convinced that changes great and important must come’, as ‘the condition is changed of the great mass of mankind’, and conceded that ‘the bases of all governments must be enlarged’, though this should not be taken to ‘extremes’.40 He divided against the second reading of the reintroduced reform bill, 6 July, but was against the adjournment motion, 12 July, and the preservation of freemen’s rights, 30 Aug. He favoured extending Fowey’s boundary so that it might retain one Member, 21 July. He proposed the merger of East and West Looe, which were ‘in fact one and the same place’, and placing it in schedule B, 22 July, but did not force a division. He accepted that Bodmin’s population meant it must remain in schedule B, 27 July, but insisted that it was ‘neither a nomination nor a corrupt borough’. He proposed that one seat be given to Penzance, 6 Aug., on account of its size, wealth and respectability, and the fact that it was ‘the capital of the district’; again he did not force a division. He said that when the reform agitation had begun he had taken a ‘decided line’ against it, 11 Aug., but admitted that his opinions had ‘since somewhat changed’. He supported the bill ‘to a certain extent’, as he saw the need for increased county representation in order to ‘counteract democratic influence’. He was ‘favourable to the principle that county representation should be in the hands of country gentlemen’ and hoped the additional seats created by the division of counties would prevent ‘vexatious and expensive contests’ caused by personal rivalries. On 19 Aug. he moved an amendment to clause 16 that 40s. freeholders should only have the vote if they were ‘seized of an estate of inheritance’ and that a £10 limit should apply to freeholders for life. His object was to ‘draw a strong line between those who have real freeholds’ and those with ‘life leases’ created ‘merely for election purposes’. He agreed to withdraw after the leader of the House, Lord Althorp, promised to bring in a clause to this effect. He was appointed to the boundary commission, although ‘some of the opposition’ objected to him.41 He was absent from the division on the bill’s passage, 21 Sept. He voted against the censure motion on the Irish administration for using undue influence in the Dublin election, 23 Aug. He was granted ten days’ leave for urgent business, 7 Oct. 1831.

He was absent from the division on the second reading of the revised reform bill, 17 Dec. 1831. Early in 1832 he wrote despairingly about the state of the country:

Pestilence now actually beginning to rage ... and a servile war impending, with the view of obtaining objects beyond human reach, principally with the hope of attaining the products of labour without work and ... capital, and in addition to these evils, the gaudy iris of indefinite perfectibility dazzling the eyes of those who should see the true interests of mankind ... Oh Lord God, have mercy upon us.42

He thought it was ‘evident’ that the reform bill ‘must pass’, 1 Feb., and said he would not oppose it ‘in toto’. He wished to ensure that only those with ‘such a stake in the country as will make them consider maturely the effects of any vote they may give’ were enfranchised, and considered the £10 household franchise to be ‘too low a qualification’ in the large towns. He therefore moved, 3 Feb., to deduct the value of under-lettings from house valuations, as ‘the lowest description of persons that can be imagined are those who take houses ... for the purpose of letting out into floors’. However, Althorp deemed this to be impracticable, and the amendment was negatived. He admitted that as an ‘abstract mathematical question’, Lieutenant Drummond’s method of scheduling the boroughs (which reprieved both Bodmin’s seats) was ‘ingenious’ and ‘unobjectionable’, 20 Feb. He was absent from the division on the bill’s third reading, 22 Mar., and left the House before the division on Lord Ebrington’s motion for an address asking the king to appoint only ministers committed to carrying an unimpaired measure, 10 May.43 In the crisis debate of 14 May, he declared that having opposed the bill only once, ‘on the metropolitan districts’, and from his general parliamentary conduct, he could ‘fairly claim to be considered one of the most independent Members’. He was ‘persuaded that the ... country is decidedly in favour of the measure’ and felt that if Wellington could only hold office by passing a similar bill, it was ‘perfectly absurd’ that Grey’s ministry should not be reinstated and ‘have the passing of it’. He was prepared to ‘withdraw my opposition to the bill’, and hoped the peers would do the same, in order to ‘conciliate the nation ... establish peace and ... avoid all chance of a civil war’. This was regarded as a powerful and decisive expression of Conservative backbench opinion against the project to form an alternative government.44 He noted in his diary, 7 June, that with the bill’s passage ‘the prescriptive constitution of England’ was ‘dead’.45 He voted for Baring’s bill to exclude insolvent debtors from Parliament, 27 June 1832.

Gilbert was unwilling to face a contested election and retired from Parliament at the 1832 dissolution. He continued to pursue his other interests, serving again as vice-president of the Royal Society, helping to form the British Association and publishing a four-volume Parochial History of Cornwall. His ‘humility and diffidence’ contributed to his subsequent obscurity, and it was said of him that ‘he communicated largely to the wants of others from his own great stores of knowledge, and shone more by those reflected lights than by the direct diffusion of his rays’.46 He died in December 1839 and left his estates to his only surviving son John Davies Gilbert (1811-54); his personalty was sworn under £18,000.47

Ref Volumes: 1820-1832

Author: Terry Jenkins


  • 1. He was the residuary legatee of his father’s estate, which was proved under £7,500 (PROB 11/1555/218; IR26/608/198).
  • 2. The will was proved under £50,000 (PROB 11/1580/254; IR26/673/305).
  • 3. A.C. Todd, Beyond the Blaze: A Biography of Davies Gilbert, 7-9, 11, 57-112, 168, 285.
  • 4. E. Suss. RO, Ashburnham mss 3242, Egremont to Ashburnham, 24 Feb.; West Briton, 10 Mar. 1820.
  • 5. The Times, 17 June 1820.
  • 6. Ibid. 21 June, 13 July 1820.
  • 7. Ibid. 6 Feb. 1821.
  • 8. Ibid. 9 Feb. 1821.
  • 9. HLRO, Hist. Coll. 379, Grey Bennet diary, 17.
  • 10. The Times, 3 Mar. 1821.
  • 11. Ibid. 23 Feb. 1821.
  • 12. Ibid. 12 Apr. 1821.
  • 13. Buckingham, Mems. Geo. IV, i. 142-3.
  • 14. The Times, 1 May 1821.
  • 15. Todd, 200-1.
  • 16. The Times, 8 Feb. 1822.
  • 17. Ibid. 16 May 1822.
  • 18. Ibid. 4 June 1822.
  • 19. Ibid. 12 June 1822.
  • 20. Ibid. 13 July 1822.
  • 21. Add. 60286, f. 238; Cornw. RO, Gilbert mss DD/DG/21, diary, 24 Sept., 22 Oct. 1822.
  • 22. The Times, 22 Apr. 1823.
  • 23. Add. 38294, f. 145; Todd, 203.
  • 24. The Times, 28 May 1824.
  • 25. Ibid. 25 Feb., 3 Mar. 1825.
  • 26. Ibid. 21 June 1825.
  • 27. West Briton, 9 June 1826.
  • 28. The Times, 20 Feb., 3 Apr. 1827.
  • 29. Ibid. 20 Feb. 1827.
  • 30. Ibid. 13 June 1827.
  • 31. Add. 40319, f. 266; 40394, ff. 235-86; Todd, 221-39.
  • 32. Add. 60288, ff. 139, 163.
  • 33. Add. 56554, f. 93.
  • 34. West Briton, 7 Aug. 1830.
  • 35. Todd, 240-66.
  • 36. Ibid. 258.
  • 37. Add. 60288, f. 331.
  • 38. Macpherson Grant mss 361, J. Macpherson Grant to fa., 2-4 Apr. 1831.
  • 39. Gilbert mss 23, diary, 30 Apr. 1831.
  • 40. Todd, 267.
  • 41. Hatherton diary, 1 Sept. 1831.
  • 42. Todd, 270.
  • 43. The Times, 14 May 1832.
  • 44. Greville Mems. ii. 299; M. Brock, Great Reform Act, 301-2.
  • 45. Gilbert mss 23, diary, 7 June 1832.
  • 46. Todd, 7, 265-6, 272-3, 276-86; Gent. Mag. (1840), i. 208-11.
  • 47. PROB 11/1922/94; IR26/1545/25.