GASCOYNE, Isaac (c.1763-1841), of Roby Hall, nr. Liverpool, Lancs. and 71 South Audley Street, Mdx.
Available from Cambridge University Press
Family and Educationb. c.1763, 2nd. s. of Bamber Gascoyne† (d. 1791) of Bifrons, Barking, Essex and Mary, da. and coh. of Isaac Green of Childwall Abbey, Liverpool; bro. of Bamber Gascoyne†. educ. Felsted. m. 1 July 1794, Mary, da. and coh. (with her sis. Anne Jane, w. of John Dent*) of John Williamson, brewer, of Roby Hall, 3s. 3da.1 d. 26 Aug. 1841.
Ensign 20 Ft. 1779; ensign 2 Ft. Gds. 1780, lt. and capt. 1784, capt. and lt.-col. 1792, brevet col. 1796; lt.-col. 16 Ft. 1799; maj.-gen. 1802; col. 7 W.I. Regt. 1805; lt.-gen. 1808; col. 54 Ft. 1816-d.; gen. 1819.
Since 1796, having previously been severely wounded serving in Flanders, Gascoyne had represented Liverpool, where his brother Bamber (whom he replaced) was lord of the manor. By 1820 he had acquired a reputation as an anti-Catholic Tory of moderate ability, who, placing constituency before party, spoke boldly on military, commercial and Irish issues with a view to retaining corporation and mercantile support. Assisted by the Liverpool True Blue Club formed in his interest after the 1818 contest, in 1820 he easily defeated his radical challengers, who accused him of soliciting payment for patronage, and polled second to George Canning as previously.2
His support for Lord Liverpool’s administration in the 1820 Parliament was erratic. The presenter of at least 150 petitions and memorials forwarded to him through the Liverpool Parliament Office in Fludyer Street, London (particularly during Canning’s illnesses and absences abroad), he spoke frequently on a wide range of issues. He commanded ministers’ attention on account of Liverpool’s importance and by sheer perseverance, but he was rarely able to influence policy.3 He divided against Catholic relief, 28 Feb. 1821, 30 Apr. 1822, 1 Mar., 10 May and the attendant franchise bill, 26 Apr. 1825. He was also an outspoken critic of relief, 30 June 1823, 6 May 1825.4 A radical publication of that session noted that he ‘attended occasionally and voted in general with ministers’.5 He divided with them on the Queen Caroline affair, 6 Feb. 1821, and rejected the radicals’ criticism of the conduct of the military at her funeral, 5, 6 Mar. 1822.6 A general since 1819, his interventions in support of ministers on the army estimates (14 Mar., 11, 13 Apr, 1 May 1821, 4, 15 Mar. 1822, 20 Feb. 1824, 6 Mar. 1826) were authoritative, informative and calculated to disabuse their radical critics; but he joined them in faulting the secretary at war Lord Palmerston’s proposals for relieving West Indian regiments, 4 Mar. 1825.7 Though favourable to its principle, he criticized the complexity of the military and naval pensions bill, 3 May 1822. Making the welfare of army officers and their dependants his priority, he campaigned successfully following its passage to have payments in Ireland made in English pounds to prevent depreciation, 25 Mar., 28 Apr., 7, 22 May 1823.8
As a diehard opponent of the 1815 corn law on his constituents’ behalf, he protested at the ‘premature agitation’ of the question by the agriculturists, 9, 12, 18, 30 May 1820, and tried vainly that day and the next to prevent the concession to them of a select committee on agricultural distress. His motion for selecting it by ballot was not seconded, and he promised to oppose any measure based on its recommendations, 31 May.9 On 7 May 1821, when the committee was revived, he pointed to its members’ differing views and predicted that the ‘whole would come to nothing’.10 He echoed the Liverpool merchants’ pleas for easing commercial restrictions to relieve distress, 30 May, 17 Oct., and their reservations on the timber duties, 2, 5 June 1820. Stressing the high commercial cost of indecision, he criticized the vice-president of the board of trade Wallace and the timber trade committee for failing to announce the duties promptly, 14, 15 Feb., and backed the Canada merchants’ petition against the ensuing bill, 4 June 1821.11 Having held aloof from the 1818-19 debates on the currency, he registered his hostility to the resumption of cash payments and voted in the minorities for inquiry, 9 Apr. 1821, for withholding the Bank’s fee pending disclosure of their management charges, 4 Mar. 1822, and against the Bank Charter Acts, 13 Feb. 1826. He divided with ministers on economy and retrenchment, 27 July 1821, and tax remissions, 11 Feb. 1822. Preferring concessions on salt to malt, he detailed the advantages to agriculture, fishing, manufacturing and the export trade of ending the salt tax, 28 Feb., 15 Mar., 1, 30 Apr., and voted for its gradual reduction, 28 Feb., and total repeal, 28 June 1822. His satisfaction with the conceded relaxation, 3 June, evaporated directly he realized that it did not apply to Liverpool’s rock salt exports to Ireland, 14, 17 June.12 He supported the government’s relief package, 1, 24 May, but became a voluble critic of their corn bill, 13, 24 May, 3, 10 June, and was a teller for the majority, 3 June, and the minority, 10 June, for Canning’s amending clause (proposed by their constituents) to facilitate the release of bonded corn for milling and export as flour, 4 Mar., 21 May.13 Representing Liverpool shipping interests, he spoke, 6 May, and presented petitions against relaxing the navigation laws, 16 May, joined in the clamour for opening the China trade, 31 May, and sought assurances from government that vessels trading with the West Indies and newly independent South American states would be protected, 23 July, 5 Aug. 1822. According to The Times, the reply ‘was in the nature of a puff to ministers’ which satisfied neither Liverpool nor commercial interests.14
As Gascoyne had expected for some time, the president of the board of trade Huskisson replaced Canning as Member for Liverpool in February 1823. Playing ‘second fiddle’, he presented only a handful of minor petitions that session, and basked in Huskisson’s inability to endorse the Liverpool tradesmen’s petition for concessions on the window tax, 7 Mar.15 He divided against government for inquiry into the prosecution of the Dublin Orange rioters, 22 Apr. 1823. Following Bamber’s death in January 1824, his Liverpool interest passed to his son-in-law the 2nd marquess of Salisbury and Gascoyne looked increasingly to the clubs for support to safeguard his position.16 In what must have been a disappointing session for him, he was unable to prevent a motion of complaint being brought against the recorder of Liverpool James Clarke as the absentee attorney-general of the Isle of Man, 1 Apr. 1824, and, outclassed by the Lancashire Member Lord Stanley’s son Edward George Geoffrey Smith Stanley, he failed to defeat the Lancaster judges’ lodgings bill, as part of Liverpool’s campaign to become Lancashire’s assize town, 2 Apr. He opposed the hides and skins bill on behalf of his constituents, 14 Apr., 18, 31 May, on the last occasion as a teller for a minority of one.17 He paired against condemning the indictment in Demerara of the Methodist missionary John Smith, 11 June 1824.
Dissatisfied with ministers’ policy on corn and heeding the artisans’ demands for a cheap loaf, he was a minority teller for Whitmore’s inquiry motion, 25 Apr., and proposed lowering the tariff on corn released from bond from 10s. to 8s., 2 May 1825, but the agriculturists scotched this for favouring importers. He exploited Huskisson’s discomfiture over the shipwrights’ dispute, stressed his own achievement in amending the 1799 Combination Acts and earned the gratitude of the artisans, who rewarded him with a gift of plate, by defending the right of the operatives to request wage increases to combat high corn prices and to strike, 3, 4 May, 29, 30 June 1825.18 A ruse and hostile petitioning prevented him from carrying Creevey’s ‘devil of a railway’ bill, the Liverpool-Manchester, that session, but he succeeded (by 88-41), 6 Apr. 1826, when, in his first major speech on a local bill, he conceded that certain property owners would be adversely affected and commended the project as a public measure, providing a vital additional means of transport which would benefit the Irish trade and 800,000 people.19 He considered Liverpool’s protest against Huskisson’s decision to make London the sole entrepôt for foreign silk fully justified, 13 Apr.20 On corn, he voted in Whitmore’s minority to reduce agricultural protection, 18 Apr., disputed Sir Robert Wilson’s claim that the decline in petitions signified indifference, 4 May, and pressed that day for immediate and more extensive inquiry than William Jacob’s† and the prompt passage of the government’s emergency bill. He voted for Lord John Russell’s resolutions on electoral bribery, 26 May 1826, when, to the amusement of the House and the astonishment of his constituents, he said that he had never been obliged to ‘pay, directly or indirectly, a single shilling for his seat’.21 He did nothing to allay the dissatisfaction of the shipwrights with Huskisson at the general election next month and was returned with him after a short poll. He denounced the artisans’ decision to put up his son Frederick, an army major, against Huskisson, fearing that it would encourage serious opposition to himself.22
On 30 Nov. 1826 Gascoyne described the half-pay list as ‘not ... a matter of economy, so much as a matter of utility’, and defended recent changes governing the sale of commissions. He presented heavily signed Liverpool petitions for ‘free trade in corn’, 8, 12 Mar. 1827, when, complaining of the ‘vacillating conduct of ministers’, he voted against increasing protection for barley.23 His much publicized motion for a select committee on the distressed shipping industry, an attack on the recent relaxation of the navigation laws in general and Huskisson’s ‘Reciprocity Acts’ of 1825 in particular, was announced, 21 Feb., postponed during Huskisson’s illness and the uncertainty pending Canning’s succession as premier following Lord Liverpool’s stroke, and supported by petitions from the major ports. He bet £10 on a successful outcome. On 7 May, ‘the great night of the shipping’, he proposed it, prefaced by a long exposé of decline and trading losses compiled from board of trade statistics and the first hand accounts of Liverpool ship owners and merchants. Thomas Henry Liddell, one of Canning’s private secretaries, seconded. Huskisson’s compelling defence of his policies, delivered after Charles Poulett Thomson had prepared the ground, carried the debate; and ‘floundering’, Gascoyne sought refuge in withdrawal to avoid certain defeat.24 According to Huskisson, he ‘did not appear to have much knowledge of the business, which he rashly undertook ... He was full two hours upon his legs; but his statements were very confined and unimpressive’.25 Gascoyne explained (in a rare surviving letter):
Mr. Huskisson’s reply, though not quite satisfactory, was conclusive. I was importuned by at least 20 Members not to divide and Mr. Liddell ... by my desire consulted the ship owners who had placed themselves under the gallery and their answer was that they left it to my discretion and thought a division must be unfavourable. Mr. Baring, Mr. Wodehouse, Mr. Ward, MP for the City, Alderman Thompson cum multis aliis, though they had previously promised support, recalled their promises and fairly told me they should vote against me. Mr. Curwen ... said he should redeem his promise and vote but he was satisfied a committee was not now necessary. Mr. Bernal and Mr. Bright, Hart Davis and others implored me not to divide and when Mr. Peel also spoke against the committee, his near connections found it but consistent that they should also vote against ... Thus deserted and bereft of the support I had really been encouraged to expect, I had no alternative but that of a very small minority, or withdrawing the motion.26
He divided against Catholic relief, 6 Mar. 1827 (and again 12 May 1828). On presenting Liverpool’s petitions for repeal of the Test Acts, 7 June 1827 (some of the many he took charge of that session), he caused a furore by alluding to a ‘tit for tat arrangement’ by which both issues were postponed.27
Following Canning’s death in August 1827, Gascoyne stood aloof from the controversy surrounding Huskisson’s successive appointments as colonial secretary in the Goderich and Wellington ministries, and his Liverpool supporters did not oppose Huskisson’s re-election in February 1828. Justifying his minority vote on East Retford, 21 Mar., he maintained that sluicing was no solution for electoral corruption and likely to extend it. He spoke and voted with government against ordnance reductions, 4 July. Overwhelmed by constituency business, especially petitions, he took charge of the abortive Liverpool elections bill sponsored by the corporation in the wake of the 1827 mayoral contest, 4, 11, 12 Feb., and, still insisting that that Liverpool elections were ‘purer than in most populous towns and freer than anywhere in the United Kingdom’, he opposed a rival Whig measure for extending Liverpool’s franchise, 9 June.28 Comparing the Mersey to the Thames, he justified proceeding with the corporation’s dock bill as a public rather a local one in order to evade defeat on a technicality, 25 Feb. and overcame John Wood’s objections, 23 May, to carry it with the attendant land bill and an extension to the Liverpool-Manchester railway bill that session. As previously (9 Mar. 1827), he called on government to legislate on poverty in Ireland, which invariably impacted on Liverpool, 14 Mar. 1828. His motion of 17 June for inquiry into the decrease of British seamen (resulting from Huskisson’s ‘liberal’ policies) was an abysmal failure, for which he was castigated in the Liverpool press.29 He had exploited the ‘paper’ loss to the mercantile fleet between 1826 and 1827 of 1,434 ships and 19,400 seamen, which, as Thomas Peregrine Courtenay stated in reply, was accounted for by the deliberate removal of non-existent crews and vessels from the shipping registers, as explained in the rubric. Undeterred, he ordered returns for his next attempt, 18 July 1828.
Gascoyne’s hostility to Catholic relief in 1829 was, like Salisbury’s, undiminished.30 Refusing to be swayed by ministers’ change of policy, he warned the home secretary Peel that his ‘old arguments’ would be used against him, 5 Feb., and promised to rally opposition to emancipation within and without doors, 6 Feb. He applauded Peel’s decision to seek re-election for Oxford University in what Smith Stanley termed ‘a foolish speech calling upon all who had changed their opinion in favour of the Catholics to follow his example’, 17 Feb., spoke similarly, 20 Feb., and criticized ploys to procure massive petitions, especially by the inclusion of female signatories, 27 Feb.31 He was forced to concede on presenting a 22,000-signature Manchester one, 2 Mar., that women were ‘as much interested in this important subject as the other sex’. Although invariably well briefed, he had difficulty defending similar petitions, 4, 9, 16, 17, 19 Mar. Harrying ministers on each occasion, he divided against emancipation, 6, 18, 23, 27, 30 Mar. That day, he denounced the measure as an unconstitutional and short-term expedient introduced to seat Catholics in Parliament, which did nothing to pacify Ireland, and he demanded immediate legislation on Irish poverty. Heeding a recent personal request for support from Wellington, he added that he would oppose Peel on no other issues.32 John Hobhouse* wrote in his diary that when he asked William Trant* and Gascoyne in April whether they were ‘going up with Mr. [John] Halcomb† to present the so-called London and Westminster [anti-Catholic] address to the king, they looked silly’.33 Gascoyne contributed effectively to discussions on Irish education, 9 Apr., and poverty, 7 May, and perceived the controversy generated by Daniel O’Connell’s refusal to take the oaths as an opportunity to amend the Emancipation Acts, 19 May. He said he was in favour of O’Connell taking his seat, because he had been ‘sacrificed’ for private and party reasons, 21 May. He used the ‘excitement and soreness’ that emancipation aroused in Liverpool, where the Tories had recently fêted Peel and the Whig Henry Brougham* as his likely replacement, to ‘strengthen himself’.34 He carried the Liverpool (St. Martin’s) church and Wallasey embankment bills, which were both vehemently opposed, 2, 3 Apr. Unlike Huskisson, who ‘corrected’ him in the House on most commercial issues except the East India Company monopoly, which they both opposed, 12 May, between 26 Feb. and 12 June Gascoyne testified repeatedly to the growing manufacturing distress in Lancashire, supported inquiry into the silk trade, 26 Feb., and restrictions on boot and shoe imports, 7 May, and voted to reduce the duty on hemp, 1 June 1829. Making a futile and ill-judged attempt that day to hijack the debate to propose a select committee on shipping, he explained: ‘I do not want to do away with all the favourite principles of free trade, but I think we might modify them so as to save the ship owners from the consequence of the impositions we have put upon them’.
He divided for the Ultra Sir Edward Knatchbull’s amendment criticizing the omission of distress from the address, 4 Feb., and, speaking on Edward Davenport’s state of the nation motion, 16 Mar. 1830, he criticized John Irving and others who denied its existence. On 23 Mar. he contrasted prosperous Liverpool with its depressed hinterland and maintained that, though localized, distress merited inquiry. However, he deliberately distanced himself from Gooch and the agriculturists who pleaded for protection, and dismissed Davenport’s comments on the currency as ‘humbug’. As a committed opponent of the (Whig) property tax, he was happy to vote with government against inquiry into tax revision, 25 Mar. He was disappointed to be omitted by Peel from the East India select committee, protested that it ought to have been balloted, deplored any restriction of its remit and mistrusted it to the last, 9 Feb., 8 July.35 His exclusion from the select committee on the Irish poor, after seconding the motion for it in an inept speech, 11 Mar., was another embarrassment taken up by the Liverpool Albion, which also ridiculed his suggestion (9 Mar. 1830) that Irish immigrants should be required to have guarantors.36
Gascoyne saw nothing unconstitutional in enfranchising the manufacturing towns, and voted to transfer East Retford’s seats to Birmingham, 5 May 1829, 11 Feb., and enfranchise Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester, 23 Feb. 1830. Commenting on the latter ‘in view of Manchester’s proximity to Liverpool’, he explained that he ‘could not agree’ to its immediate implementation, nor to universal suffrage or radical reform, and ‘I certainly am against increasing the number of Members in this House’. He quoted the 200 private and local bills he had presented over the past 30 years to substantiate his claim that county Members were ‘not sufficient’ and a seat for a populous town ‘no sinecure’. When challenged, he attributed his differences with Tory colleagues to the implementation by them of liberal policies on free trade, currency reform and Catholic emancipation. He voted with the revived Whig opposition for reductions in official salaries, 10, 11 May, and to repeal the Irish coal duties, 13 May. Undeterred by favourable Liverpool petitions, he opposed the Jewish emancipation bill, 4, 17 May, when, denouncing the ‘non-Christian exclusivity of Jewry’, he moved the adjournment by which it was defeated with government backing. He cast a wayward vote on the consular services grant, 1 June, and supported inquiry into the government of Sierra Leone, 15 June (having broached it himself, 23 Feb. 1828); but he wanted its remit restricted to expenditure ‘to avoid agitating the slavery question’. He was minority teller against the exchequer loan bill, 1 July. Later that day he protested at the high tariff and continuing differentiation in levies on East and West Indian sugars and claimed that their announcement had been deliberately delayed to deter petitioning. He refused to believe the charges against his ‘personal acquaintance’ General Darling as governor of New South Wales, 9 July 1830. Despite Whig and Tory manoeuvring, his ninth return for Liverpool at the general election in August passed uneventfully and he topped the token poll.37 On the hustings, he repeated his call for an end to the East India Company’s monopoly and the opening of the China trade and stressed his votes for retrenchment. Conceding that ‘some reform’ was necessary, he also alluded to his support for enfranchising large towns.38 With Salisbury, he was at the opening of the Liverpool-Manchester railway when Huskisson was fatally injured, 15 Sept. 1830, and had similarly left his own carriage.39
The Wellington ministry listed Gascoyne among the 25 ‘violent Ultras’ in the new Parliament, but he did not vote on the civil list when they were brought down, 15 Nov. 1830. Both Peel and the new Grey ministry, whom he urged to reappoint the East India select committee, 12 Nov., 10 Dec., conceded a place to him as a Liverpool Member, and he was named to it, 6 Feb. 1831.40 The following day, he hosted a dinner for the Liverpool delegation lobbying for lower sugar duties.41 He had tried to divert attention from the Nonconformists’ anti-slavery petitions, 23, 25 Nov. 1830, and, as requested, he endorsed the Liverpool West India Association’s petition for gradual abolition and compensation, presented by his new colleague William Ewart, 15 Dec. Urging immediate clarification, he now quipped that he had expected the matter to be settled by the new lord chancellor Brougham, ‘but I find that the government have moderated the zeal of that noble personage. The wild elephant has been brought to by being led alongside the tame ones’[in the Lords].42 He supported a similar petition from Dublin on his constituents’ behalf, 29 Mar 1831.43 He confirmed his opposition to Jewish emancipation, 15 Dec. 1830, and vehemently opposed Charles Williams Wynn’s oaths in Parliament bill, 4 Feb. On 11 Feb. 1831, taking a mixed view of the budget, he made the chancellor Lord Althorp disclose that the penny duty on cotton was an additional one, faulted the concession on coal (having advocated total repeal, 22 Nov., 8 Dec. 1830) and criticized the proposed tax on stock transfers.
Concentrating on electoral reform, he spoke briefly on the Galway, 6 Dec., and Stamford, 14 Dec., election petitions, and complained that the rush to proceed with the Liverpool ones, lest Ewart vacate to evade scrutiny, was unjustified and prejudicial to their outcome, 20 Dec. 1830. He quizzed Russell closely over the government’s intended reform bill when the disfranchisement of Evesham was discussed, 17, 18 Feb. 1831. Debilitating pain from a wartime head injury that periodically recurred kept him away from the House for the next three weeks. On 14 Mar., bringing up his constituents’ petition for ‘opening close boroughs, and giving the right of representation to large and populous towns’, he approved the last tenet and said he hoped the House would ‘not separate this session without coming to some resolution in favour of reform’. Discussing the ministerial measure, he suggested that Liverpool, with more £10 houses than the counties of Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Cambridgeshire combined, ‘probably’ merited additional representation. He saw no need to ‘throw overboard 62 Members’, as the bill proposed, and said he would oppose its details.44 Two days later, ‘confined to my room’, he sought assistance on Liverpool business from the Parliament Office secretary William Wainwright, explaining that ‘the exertion of Monday last [14 Mar.] threw me back considerably, chiefly in the necessity of wearing my hat, which had a material effect on my forehead by exciting its inflammation’.45 Pleading illness, he paired against the reform bill at its second reading, 22 Mar. He made it known in mercantile circles that he approved the stance taken by John Gladstone* and the Liverpool anti-reformers and presented their ‘moderate’ petitions, 29 Mar., 12 Apr., when (as on 30 Mar., 13, 14 Apr.) he taunted Russell on his exclusion from the cabinet and criticized the bill on its minutiae and for transferring English seats to Scotland and Ireland in ‘violation of the Acts of Union’.46 On 30 Mar. he indicated that he would propose moving to give all towns with over 150,000 inhabitants and 20,000 electors four Members, as a means of appealing to committed reformers and thwarting the transfer of Members to Ireland, as the Ultras wished. Hampered by the delayed announcement of changes to the bill and restrained by the Tories, who complained that he had ‘shipwrecked their opposition’, he moved on 18 Apr., with Michael Sadler as his seconder, to instruct the committee ‘that it is the opinion of this House, that the total number of knights, citizens and burgesses returned to Parliament for ... England and Wales, ought not to be diminished’. The tone of his speech was anti-Irish and the Irish secretary Smith Stanley and Russell were his bitterest critics.47 Thomas Gladstone* informed his father that ‘Gascoyne, never over able for such a task, was less so than usual ... from the state of his health, though improved’, and the consensus was that the ‘gasconade’ was ‘flat’, but, as many on both sides had feared, he carried the division next day by 299-291, so wrecking the bill and precipitating a dissolution.48 On the 21st, when John Benett, the Tory chairman of the Liverpool election committee, proposed legislating on their finding of ‘gross bribery’, Gascoyne warned of the danger of disfranchisement without inquiry and defended Liverpool and his conduct ‘in a regular electioneering speech’.49 He declared his candidature as a moderate reformer ‘entirely independent’ of party, 24 Apr. 1831, confident of backing from the ‘lower ranks of freemen’ who had requisitioned him, Salisbury and the opposition’s Charles Street committee. His supporters’ tactics were, however, no match for those of the reformers for Ewart and the former Canningite John Evelyn Denison. ‘Hooted and hissed’, he polled a poor third.50 The Whigs delighted in his drubbing.51
Despite speculation, Gascoyne, who was widely caricaturized in December 1831, when the revised reform bill left the number of Members unchanged, did not stand for Parliament again.52 In February 1832 Thomas Gladstone observed that he looked ‘many years younger ... thanks to being out of Parliament’.53 He died of inflammation of the bowels at his London house in South Audley Street in August 1841, survived by his wife (d. 1849) and six children.54 The Manchester mill owner Sir George Philips* recalled Gascoyne’s gaming losses to the Liverpool Physician Dr. Bell, and the duel provoked by their subsequent public exchanges.55 On 9 and 29 Nov. 1841, his wife, youngest son Charles and unmarried daughter Mary Anne testified to the authenticity of his will, a draft dated 1 Dec. 1836 confirming what he recalled of another deposited with his agents Cox and Company of Charing Cross, which, as he feared, had been ‘mislaid’. By it he left everything to his wife, to whom probate on personalty under £7,000 was granted, 3 Dec. 1841.56
Ref Volumes: 1820-1832
Author: Margaret Escott
- 1. Ex inf. Mary Elizabeth Allan. This source corrects references to Gascoyne having only one son in HP Commons, 1790-1820, iv. 9 and Oxford DNB.
- 2. Liverpool Mercury, 3, 10 Mar.; The Times, 18 Mar.; St. Deiniol’s Lib. Glynne-Gladstone mss 128, H. to J. Gladstone, 8 Apr. 1820; Liverpool RO, election squib bk. (1820), 18, 23, 79, 126-8.
- 3. HP Commons, 1790-1820, iv. 9-10; W.O. Henderson, ‘The Liverpool Office in London’, Economica, xiii (1933), 473-9; Manchester New Coll. Oxf. Archives, William Shepherd mss vii, f. 5.
- 4. The Times, 27 Apr. 1825.
- 5. Session of Parl. 1825, p. 465.
- 6. The Times, 6 Mar. 1822.
- 7. Ibid. 15 Mar., 12 Apr., 2 May 1821, 7 Mar. 1826.
- 8. Ibid. 4 May 1822, 26 Mar., 29 Apr., 8 May 1823.
- 9. Ibid. 10, 19, 31 May 1820.
- 10. Ibid. 8 May 1821.
- 11. Ibid. 15, 16 Feb., 5 June 1821.
- 12. Ibid. 16 Mar., 1 May, 4, 15, 18 June 1822.
- 13. Ibid. 5 Mar., 2, 14, 22, 25 May 1822; Parl. Deb. (n.s.), vii. 874.
- 14. The Times, 7, 17 May, 1 June 1822.
- 15. Liverpool RO, Parliament Office mss 328/PAR2/97; Harewood mss WYL 250/8/73, Canning to J. Gladstone, 14 Sept. 1822; TNA 30/29/8/6/287; The Times, 8 Mar. 1823.
- 16. The Times, 27 Jan. 1824; C. Oman, Gascoyne Heiress, passim.
- 17. The Times, 24 Feb., 18, 23 Mar., 2, 9 Apr., 1 June 1824.
- 18. Parliament Office mss PAR3/26; The Times, 30 June, 1 July 1825; J. Picton, Memorials of Liverpool, i. 399-400.
- 19. The Times, 5 Feb., 16 Mar., 10 May 1825; Parliament Office mss PAR3/29; Glynne-Gladstone mss 350, passim; Creevey Pprs. ii. 87-88.
- 20. The Times, 14 Apr. 1826.
- 21. Liverpool Mercury, 2 June 1826.
- 22. Glynne-Gladstone mss 276, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 30 May; Harewood mss 84, Huskisson to Canning, 12 June; Lonsdale mss, Holmes to Lonsdale, 13 June; Liverpool Mercury, 16 June 1826; E.M. Menzies, ‘The Freeman Voter in Liverpool’, Trans. Hist. Soc. Lancs. and Cheshire, cxxiv (1973), 94.
- 23. The Times, 9, 13 Mar. 1827.
- 24. Glynne-Gladstone mss 194, T. to J. Gladstone, 17, 22 Feb.; 276, Huskisson to same, 14 Apr.; The Times, 22, 26 Feb., 20, 24, 27 Mar., 4 May; Nottingham Univ. Lib. Denison diary, 3, 7 May 1827.
- 25. Glynne-Gladstone mss 277, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 8 May 1827.
- 26. Ibid. 123, Gascoyne to J. Gladstone, 9 May 1827.
- 27. The Times, 8 June 1827.
- 28. Albion, 16 June 1828.
- 29. Liverpool Chron. 21 June; Albion, 23 June 1828.
- 30. Wellington mss WP1/993/77; 1002/1.
- 31. Derby mss 920 Der (14) 63, Lord Stanley to Smith Stanley [postmark 20 Feb. 1829].
- 32. Brougham mss, Lord J. Russell to Brougham, 25 Mar. .
- 33. Add. 56554, f. 5.
- 34. The Times, 10 Oct. 1828; Liverpool Chron. 21 Mar. 1829; Glynne-Gladstone mss 278, Huskisson to J. Gladstone, 11 June 1829.
- 35. Albion, 15 Feb. 1830.
- 36. Wellington mss WP1/1101/7; Albion, 15 Mar. 1830.
- 37. Add. 38758, f. 220; Albion, 5 July; Hatfield House mss, bdle. 3, Leigh to Salisbury, 9, 23 July, 5 Aug. 1830.
- 38. The Times, 4 Aug.; Albion, 7 Aug. 1830.
- 39. Hatfield House mss, bdle. 3, Leigh to Salisbury, 2 Sept.; C.R. Fay, Huskisson and his Age, 6; Albion, 20 Sept. 1830.
- 40. Add. 40340, f. 246.
- 41. Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 7, 12 Feb. 1831.
- 42. Ibid. 243, G. Grant to J. Gladstone, 18 Dec. 1830.
- 43. Ibid. 244, same to same, 29 Mar. 1831.
- 44. Gore’s Advertiser, 5 Mar.; Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 14 Mar. 1831.
- 45. Parliament Office mss PAR7/127.
- 46. Glynne-Gladstone mss 197, T. to J. Gladstone, 22, 28 Mar. 1831.
- 47. Lonsdale mss, Lowther to Lonsdale, 3 Apr.; Glynne-Gladstone mss, T. to J. Gladstone, 14, 18 Apr. 1831; Brougham, Life and Times, iii. 111-2.
- 48. Add. 51573, Spring Rice to Holland [18 Apr.]; 51576, Fazakerley to same [18 Apr.]; Glynne-Gladstone mss, T. to J. Gladstone, 19 Apr. 1831; Broughton, Recollections, iv. 101.
- 49. Glynne Gladstone mss 198, T. to J. Gladstone, 22 Apr.; Gore’s Advertiser, 28 Apr. 1831.
- 50. Glynne Gladstone mss 244, G. Grant to J. Gladstone, 23 Apr., 2-4 May; Hatfield House mss, bdle. 4, Leigh to Salisbury, 25, 27, 30 Apr., 2, 2 May; 2M/Gen. Arbuthnot to same, 5 May; Derby mss (14) 116/6, J. Winstanley to Smith Stanley, 25 Apr.; Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 2 May; Liverpool Chron. 7 May 1831; Menzies, 95.
- 51. Creevey mss, Creevey to Miss Ord, 6 May; Grey mss, C. Grant to Grey, 7 May 1831.
- 52. Hatherton mss, Palmerston to Littleton, 14 May 1831; M.D. George, Cat. of Pol. and Personal Satires, xi. 16832.
- 53. Glynne-Gladstone mss 199, T. to J. Gladstone, 1 Feb. 1832.
- 54. Ann. Reg. (1841), Chron. p. 219.
- 55. Warws. RO MI 247, Philips Mems. i. 13.
- 56. PROB 8/234; 11/1955/802.