The Border city and county town of Carlisle was a castellated borough at the confluence of the rivers Caldew and Eden. It comprised two parishes (St. Mary and St. Cutherbert), divided into five wards, and its corporation, ‘an exclusive body on the grounds of politics and religion’, consisted of a mayor or returning officer, elected on the first Monday after Michaelmas (charter day), a further 11 aldermen, a recorder, two bailiffs, a town clerk and 24 ‘capital intigers’, chosen from among the freemen citizens by the mayor and the majority of aldermen.5 Neighbouring gentry had generally represented its interests in Parliament and its politics had been dominated since 1761 by the combined effort of the independent party and the Cumberland Whig hierarchy, the Blues. They were assisted in turn by the dukes of Norfolk and Portland and the earls of Carlisle to undermine the influence exerted on the borough by the Lowther family and their devotees, the Yellows, whose current head, William Lowther†, the Tory 1st earl of Lonsdale, had been the recorder since 1802. An uneasy truce that year ensuring joint representation had ended at the by-election of 1816, when the defeat of the renegade Whig Sir Philip Musgrave of Eden Hall by the Whig veteran John Christian Curwen exposed divisions within both parties. By 1832 the freemen had been polled a further seven times.6 The population and employment in the foundries and factories of the Dixon, Ferguson, Hewson, Marshall and Sowerby families, who specialized in the production of linens, cotton checks and ginghams for the West Indian trade, had grown rapidly, and the Members were expected to promote the town’s commercial interests and invest in the Gas Company (1819), Solway canal (1820-3) and the Newcastle railway (1824-38), and to promote improvement bills (1823) and road bills almost annually. Most were locally divisive. Candidates were quizzed closely about their politics at elections and had their parliamentary conduct scrutinized by the ‘Blue’ Carlisle Journal (circulation 60,000 in 1832) and the ‘Yellow’ Carlisle Patriot (30,000), which by 1830 was ultra radical.7 Freeman creations, of which there were 631 between 1812 and December 1831, were concentrated in by-election years (1816, 100; 1820, 129; 1825, 27; 1827, 112; 1829, 48), and were preceded by admission to one of the guilds (butchers, merchants, shoemakers, skinners, smiths, tanners, tailors and weavers). Each was managed by an attorney, but only the butchers’ guild was well funded and trade-specific.8

The decision of the Blue tradesmen (the low Blues) to nominate the native nabob Joseph Parkins as third man in 1818, when the party’s hierarchy were engaged in the Whig lawyer Henry Brougham’s* challenge to the Lowthers in Westmorland, had posed no threat to the return of Curwen and the sitting Yellow Sir James Graham, who through his wealth and Edmond Castle influence aspired to a personal interest.9 Speculation that Curwen would stand for Cumberland, growing disaffection among the handloom weavers after their abortive 1819 strike, the Coal Fell Hill Peterloo meeting, mass meetings on The Sands, and the establishment of male and female radical reform associations created uncertainty at the general election of 1820 and a contest was again predicted.10 However, heeding advice from the banker James Foster and the attorney Henry Pearson, who stressed Graham’s age (66) and personal popularity, Musgrave and the Whig hierarchy decided to postpone their challenge. Independently of them, an anti-Lowther meeting at the Blue Bell, chaired by the innkeeper Benjamin Holmes, 23 Feb., requisitioned the Whig heir to Netherby, James Robert George Graham, whose Tory father had been the defeated candidate in 1796, to stand with Curwen. The London banker Rowland Stephenson*, who had ‘run away’ from a contest in 1816, tested the strength of the Fawcett interest.11 He desisted, young Graham declined and the butchers William Gibbons and John Mathews requisitioned and nominated William James, the radical squire of Barrock (the 3rd duke of Portland’s former estate), whose wealth derived largely from West Indian plantations, 10 Mar. The poll stood overnight at Graham 132, Curwen 114, James 68, and closed next day at Graham 246, Curwen 239, James 146, when James, who neither canvassed nor appointed a committee, retired. The Carlisle Journal attributed Graham’s victory to out-voter support.12 According to Eleanor Carlyle, daughter of the late diocesan chancellor and herself a Yellow, tallies for James were ‘made up at Curwen’s house, where cards were given to each freeman printed with the names of ‘Curwen and James’, and

not a doubt existed ... of a coalition ... though at the very time that cards were circulated by the Blues containing this assurance, both Curwen and James most solemnly protested the contrary. There are [some] who have voted on Sir James’s side and that of his opponents ... Chairing for Sir James was utterly out of the question and it was with very considerable difficulty and much danger that Sir J. and his friends proceeded from the town hall to the Bush. An absolute conflict took place between Sir J.’s party and the radicals, and many of the former was seriously hurt. Mr. Peter Dixon was thrown down and trampled upon and others suffered from brickbats, stones, sticks, etc., etc., which were thrown with the determined intention of taking Sir J.’s life. He went surrounded by his friends, and beyond them by 100 constables ... The mob has been most unruly and if the military had not been here (much as the necessity is to be lamented) undoubtedly it would have been very terrible ... Mr. Forster’s windows were broken last night, and this morning it was once in agitation to nominate Sir H[ew Dalrymple] Ross, that Sir J.’s split votes might be thrown on him.13

Curwen’s election for Cumberland, where he replaced his fellow Whig Lord Morpeth†, 17 Mar., further divided their party, who, with Musgrave already in the field feared defeat at the ensuing by-election.14 To avert it they rallied behind the attorney to the weavers’ guild, Curwen’s nephew William Dobinson, who at a meeting at the Coffee House assembly rooms, 18 Mar., secured a requisition for James, which was immediately accepted.15 Musgrave, whose candidature was promoted by Lonsdale’s colliery agent Bowness, the ‘puny remnant’ of the Pitt Club and three anti-Catholic clergymen, Armistead of Whitehaven, Fawcett of Cockermouth and Whitehead of Hensingham, was perceived as a Yellow despite his purple and orange favours, and by 29 Apr. he had ‘479 positive promises’ from the ‘slippery Independent freemen’.16 After a protracted canvass of the residents and out-voters he was nominated on 24 May by the judge Sir John Sewell and the county coroner Richard Lowry of Stanwix, who was later commended by Lonsdale’s heir Lord Lowther* as the ‘best seconder, as he can talk to the "mobility" in their own way’.17 James, whose supporters received blue and white commemorative plates, was proposed by Dr. Jackson of Egremont and Henry Brougham. Polling proceeded slowly and riotously to close that day at James 50, Musgrave 46.18 The Yellow magistrates called in troops on the second day to quell riots which, according to James’s counsel, the Newcastle barrister James Losh, were only minor skirmishes. After maintaining a narrow lead for the first five days, James polled a decisive 107 to Musgrave’s 13 on the sixth, and with the Yellows almost polled out he was declared the victor (by 468-382) next day, having spent £17,000: £4,000 more than he admitted to and £6,000 less than Musgrave.19 According to David Stoker’s calculations, 80 per cent of those polled had voted in 1816: 77 per cent of Musgrave’s supporters and 81 per cent of Curwen’s.20 The Lowthers’ analysis of the pollbook, made preparatory to the 1827 by-election, put James 122:89 ahead among the residents and gave Musgrave a majority among the Cumberland out-voters.21 James, who claimed to have 200 supporters unpolled, carried all the guilds except the merchants and smiths, who voted 39-35 and 57-32 respectively for Musgrave.22 He presented a petition of complaint against the deployment of troops at the election, 28 June 1820. To the embarrassment of the corporation and the Lowthers, its consideration was repeatedly deferred until 15 Mar. 1821, when they failed to prevent its referral to the committee of privileges, before whom the magistrates responsible had to testify.23 It decided that a civil force would have sufficed but recommended no further action against the magistrates, 3 Apr. 1821.24 A petition against James’s return alleging bribery and intimidation was received, 19 June 1820, but not proceeded with.25 According to The Times of 19 June 1826, James was ‘thunderstruck’ to learn that his agents had spent £8,000 on bribes and treating and £4,000 on legitimate expenses, leaving only the latter unpaid.

The Lowther-dominated corporation refused to sanction but failed to prevent the Blues adopting a loyal address to Queen Caroline, 12 Aug. 1820. They petitioned the Commons condemning the bill of pains and penalties and its instigators, 26 Jan., and for parliamentary reform as a palliative for distress, 9 May 1821.26 Others protested against irreligion, 13 Mar., and the manufacturers and landowners supported the campaign for repeal of the coastwise coal duties.27 From November 1821 the unstamped Citizen (1821-7) was issued weekly. Subscriptions for the newsroom became a party issue in February 1822, when the Lowther’s London paper, John Bull, was rejected in favour of William Cobbett’s† Weekly Register. John Bull retaliated by ridiculing the appearance and mannerisms of Dobinson, William Halton and the mayor John Hodgson and denounced the radicals as ‘remnants of a race not properly hung out in 1745 when the gates of the city were so treacherously opened to the rebels’.28 The merchants, manufacturers and bankers petitioned for criminal law reform, 30 Apr., and a ‘moderate and safe’ reform of Parliament, 1 May 1822.29 An improvement bill giving the corporation control of policing the borough and adjacent suburbs and the right to levy rates accordingly was petitioned for, 18 Feb. 1823, but abandoned as ‘a job’ amid fierce local opposition.30 The inhabitants petitioned both Houses in 1823, 1824 and 1826 for the total abolition of slavery.31 The Commons also received petitions from the spirit dealers, 20 June 1823, and brewers, 17 Mar. 1824, complaining of restrictions on their trade.32 The butchers (4 May) petitioned in favour and the tanners against (17 May) the 1824 hides and skins bill, and the journeymen shoemakers for repeal of the combination laws, 15 Mar. 1824.33

When Graham’s death on 21 Mar. 1825 produced a vacancy Lord Lowther, who privately regarded ‘the Carlisle people ... [as] a dissatisfied calculating set of voters as any in England’, who ‘will grumble and yet ... will elect anyone that goes there’, failed to persuade his brother-in-law, the judge advocate Sir John Beckett*, to stand; but he oversaw arrangements for Musgrave to vacate at Petersfield, 28 Mar., so foiling an attempt by the nabob Alexander Nowell* of Underley Park, Westmorland, whose notices appeared on 23 Mar., to come in on the corporation interest.34 Lowther’s fears that the Blues, who met at the Coffee House to ‘fix on a candidate’, 24 Mar., would persuade Graham’s heir, the Whig Sir Sandford Graham*, Henry Howard* of Greystoke, or Graham of Netherby to declare were soon dispelled. The Carlisle Independent ceased publication after two issues, Stephenson declined, and Parkins, who issued notices daily from 9 Essex Street in the Strand, 25-29 Mar., apparently did not leave London. Musgrave thus came in unopposed, nominated by Drs. Blamire and Harrington.35 He eulogized the late Member and supported the innkeepers’ abortive campaign for better barrack provision, the subject of their recent petition complaining of the cost of billeted troops.36 The main issue debated was free trade in corn, petitioned for at a well-attended meeting of 31 Mar., requisitioned by the cotton manufacturers John Dixon and Joseph Ferguson and the maltster William Halton. Their petition received only token support from its Commons presenter, James, 25 Apr. The Commons received a protectionist petition from certain landowners and occupiers, 28 Apr.37 Plans for the Carlisle-Newcastle railway were curtailed in December 1825 for want of money.38 Foster’s bank survived a run that month, as did Perrings, whose London agents Sir Peter Pole* and Company failed.39 Barristers at Carlisle sessions testified to the Lords committee on Scottish banking to the benefits of being paid in Scottish bank notes.40 A corporation sponsored police bill extending the jurisdiction of city magistrates to the suburbs was opposed and abandoned before the dissolution.41 The Blues had petitioned against and the Yellows for the 1824 New Churches Act, and Musgrave contributed £200 towards church building in Carlisle shortly before the general election of 1826.42

The Blue gentry knew by February 1826 that declining West Indian revenues precluded James’s candidature. With Curwen’s acquiescence and a view to improving his prospects of acquiring a Cumberland seat, Graham accepted a requisition procured by Dobinson on 2 May and directed his estate agent John Yule to subscribe £25 for the manufacturing poor.43 Though out for a ‘single seat’, he was prepared ‘to put the Blue interest to the test’ should a second Yellow stand with Musgrave.44 When Nowell, who was requisitioned on 1 June, seemed likely to do so, the Lowthers diverted his attention to Lancashire, where he failed to go to a poll.45 The resident Blues, aggrieved at having ‘a county man’ selected by Dobinson, Curwen and Brougham and approved by Lonsdale foisted on them, were not so readily placated. They issued anti-Graham broadsides and requested their ‘brethren ... in their respective guilds’ to adopt a second man.46 With none forthcoming they resolved to nominate James, despite his outright refusal to stand and deliberate absence.47 Anonymous handbills failed to raise the ‘No Popery’ cry, and free trade in corn and the contribution of high bread prices to the distress of the cotton weavers were the major election issues. Castigated on 5 June by the Caldewgate mob for not voting for cheap bread, Musgrave had to seek refuge in a weaver’s shop, where ‘he was put on a loom and forcibly given a lesson in the art of weaving’. William Hodgson, the Yellow mayor and clerk of the peace, regarded the suburbs as ‘depots for the ringleaders of the three kingdoms, all the vagabond Irish and Scotch’, and he had no confidence in the 300 special constables, mainly weavers, sworn in by his fellow magistrates to assist him. Accompanied by his deputy and two constables, he read the Riot Act and enabled Musgrave to escape. The 55th Foot, who were summoned to restore order, fatally shot two young women, and a youth died later of his injuries.48 Musgrave issued a statement the next day conceding the case for additional corn imports ‘under a protecting duty’. He also summoned his supporters to the election on 9 June, when he was proposed by Lowry and the chief inspector of military hospitals, Sir Joseph Dacre Appleby Gilpin.49 That evening he informed Lowther:

We are unexpectedly involved in a contest, the radicals have completely overpowered the civil power. Mr. James has been put in nomination by them and Sir James’s voters are splitting on him. The poll today stands Sir James Graham 119, myself 92 and James 71 ... Not expecting any opposition we had made no country canvass but as the Blues have brought in several country voters I have sent to Whitehaven for the freemen there, judging that Lord Lonsdale would prefer the expense of a contest to my being beat.50

Ill and anxious, Hodgson closed the poll early and summoned the cavalry from Brampton, while Musgrave retreated to his mansion, Eden Hall.51 The poll stood at Graham 205, Musgrave 185, James 106 on the second day and closed at Graham 264, Musgrave 239, James 139 on the third, when the butcher Thomas Blaylock, who nominated and deputized for James, was chaired with Graham instead of the absent Musgrave.52 The Yellows maintained that they ‘had plenty of voters to turn the poll in Sir Philip’s favour’ and insisted that Graham’s victory by an unexpectedly large margin was a tactical ploy to ‘preserve the peace of the city’.53 The inquest on the ‘rioters’ found:

The soldiers were in the first instance justified in firing their muskets ... They continued to fire in a very indiscreet and inconsiderate manner and particularly at private houses, when the necessity for so doing seems to them to have ceased ... [but] the deaths were in other respects accidental.54

The home secretary Peel criticized Hodgson’s decision to summon military assistance, 5 June, but thought him justified in doing so on the 9th and approved the 1827 Carlisle police bill, which received royal assent, 14 June. Initially it had bipartisan support, but the corporation opposed it outright once it became clear that it denied them control of the new 18-strong force, which was appointed by the townships and financed from the rates.55 Petitions to the Commons, 3 Apr. 1827, protesting at the use of troops at the 1826 election were used to back it.56 Petitions instigated by the weavers for abolition or amendment of the corn laws were received by the Lords, 28 Nov. 1826, 20 Feb., and the Commons, 19 Feb., who received another from the cotton spinners and merchants opposed to relaxing the prohibition on machinery exports, 19 Mar. 1827.57 The Carlisle improvement bill originally entrusted to Musgrave received royal assent, 14 June 1827, after representations were made by counsel on behalf of the corporation.58

Musgrave’s death, 16 July 1827, caught the parties unprepared and at least 18 contenders were considered in the ensuing scramble for candidates. Overtures by Losh, on behalf of the Blues, to the Whigs Henry Howard of Greystoke, John Williams*, who had recently been unseated at Ilchester, and Thomas Denman* all failed.59 Expense and the prospect of a ‘hard-fought contest at every dissolution’ deterred Lord Thanet’s brother Henry Tufton*, and James Brougham’s* preferred choice William Crackenthorpe of Newbiggin. Both were grieved to learn that Henry Brougham had sounded John Foster Barham*.60 The conveyancer Edmund Gibson Atherley was apparently interested and Colonel Thomas Sowerby, son of the Cumberland-born squire of Putteridge, Hertfordshire, and purchaser of Dalston Hall, canvassed the Lancashire out-voters before desisting.61 Resisting pressure from the radicals to put forward William Brougham*, the Blue hierarchy eventually settled on Graham’s brother-in-law Wilfrid Lawson (formerly Wybergh) of Brayton, whose family had last shared in the representation of the county in 1762. Like Atherley, he had recently rejected a requisition got up by Dobinson, the grocer Blamire and the butcher William Gibbons.62 Graham went to the continent to avoid the fray, while Lawson set a £1,500 limit on spending and deposited only £1,000 at Foster’s bank.63 Sir William Scott of Ancrum, who posed as both a liberal Canningite and a Tory, arrived on 23 July, sounded the leaders of both parties and ‘flirted a little’ with the voters. William Hodgson, for the corporation, recommended taking him or Nowell, but neither was acceptable to Lowther, who, fearing that the leader of the Westmorland Yellows, George Wilson of Dallam Tower, ‘had an idea of offering himself’ with a view to establishing his own interest, suggested Musgrave’s brother George, Thomas Henry Graham of Edmond Castle, Sir Hew Dalrymple Ross of Stonehouse and Christopher Parker of Petterill as more manageable ‘local’ candidates.64 To persuade Lonsdale to withdraw his intended offer to Scott he wrote:

I cannot comprehend the meaning or reasoning of those Carlisle gentlemen when they talk of a person of local connection and then soliciting and asking a man out of Roxburghshire, 70 miles north of Carlisle, as if there was any difference whether he came north or south. I apprehend that supporting Sir William Scott would be the greatest avowal of weakness and indecision that could be made, as he backed out from the Brougham support on account of the expense it would be, announcing that he was adopted for his £2,000.65

He added erroneously that Scott was a Member of Brooks’s.66 Relieved that the Leeds linen manufacturer John Marshall and his son William, who ‘might have been formidable if one offered for Carlisle as it was once talked about’, were seated elsewhere, Lowther relinquished his search for a ‘busy, bustling, speechifying man’ and exerted himself to the full on behalf of the East India Company director and ‘zealous Protestant’ James Law Lushington, brother to the former secretary to the treasury Stephen Rumbold Lushington, who had recently vacated at Hastings.67 His candidature for £2,000 down and up to £2,000 in costs was negotiated by the Tory whip William Holmes* and announced on 28 July, the same day as Lawson’s.68 As an electioneering ploy the Yellows exaggerated Lushington’s northern connections (his father had been an absentee vicar of Newcastle-upon-Tyne and his mother a distant relation of Curwen and Dobinson), likewise his support for corn law revision, and mocked the employment as agents by the Blues of the attorneys Andrew, Bendle and Dixon as a sign of their increased radicalism and lack of funds.69 The Blues stressed Lawson’s Cumberland ancestry and support for Brougham and ridiculed Lushington, whom Lowther accompanied throughout, as a stranger, party tool, ‘Indian juggler’ and commander of ‘black cavalry’ who had purchased his seat.70 On 13 Aug., after an exhaustive canvass, Dr. Harrington and Dobinson proposed Lawson, whose committee was chaired by the Rev. Peter Howe, vicar of Issell. It included Curwen’s nephew, the future county Member William Blamire* of Thackwood Nook, James Brougham and the Howards of Greystoke and Corby Castle. Lawson advocated retrenchment, ‘some reform of Parliament’, repeal of the Test Acts, Catholic relief and the abolition of all slavery. Lushington, nominated by Gilpin and Lowry, promised to oppose Catholic relief and to promote commercial prosperity and cheap bread. Lowther’s request for ‘double polling places’ was overruled and all ten votes cast on the first day were for Lawson. Voting by tallies escorted by Lowther bludgeon men favoured Lushington, who accumulated a 175-163 lead after two days, which Lawson narrowed to 271-276 after three. The Blues had prevaricated over summoning the London out-voters, and they interpreted the mayor’s decision to close the poll early that day on account of rioting as a ploy to allow more travelling time for Yellow out-voters. With £3,000 and a substantial sum from the Canning ministry’s election fund spent, Lawson conceded defeat on the fourth day with the poll at 362-323.71 James Brougham attributed the Blues’ failure to ‘want of a proper canvass’, money and Lowther intimidation.72 The ‘fag end’ of the election also coincided with the uncertainty generated by Canning’s death and that of Bishop Goodenough of Carlisle, whose successor Hugh Percy was appointed, 8 Oct. 1827.73 Allegations of bribery were made on both sides and Lowther’s relief at retaining a seat at Carlisle, the ‘bulwark’ of their interest, without which ‘Cumberland and Westmorland must fall’, was tempered by concern over the management and cost of future elections.74 Despite savings made by closing the poll before most long distance voters arrived, victory cost the Lowthers £5-6,000. Lord Lowther estimated £4,000 was spent on the resident electors and protested at the voracious demands of the Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle freemen. He maintained that the Yellows would have spent a further £20,000 had he not been present to curb their agents’ activities.75 The Scottish Presbyterians and the Dissenters of Anwell [Annetwell] Street chapel petitioned the Commons for repeal of the Test Acts, 7 June 1827, and both Houses in 1828, when petitions were also received by the Commons for repeal of the 1827 Malt Act, 17 Mar., and by both Houses for Catholic relief, 30 Apr., 2 May.76 Petitions received in July against colonial slavery from the magistrates, clergy and inhabitants complained at the lack of progress made since 1823.77 A sparsely attended meeting chaired by the mayor William Hodgson petitioned for repeal of the stamp duty on newspapers and receipts, 12 May 1828 (as also 31 Mar. 1825, 9 Feb. 1831).78

Curwen’s death on 11 Dec. 1828 heralded Graham’s resignation to stand for Cumberland, which placed the Blue seat at risk.79 His preferred successor William Cavendish, heir to the 6th duke of Devonshire (who was to come in for Cambridge University and marry Lord Carlisle’s daughter in 1829) was a minor, Lawson and James were unwilling and Sowerby was hampered by unpaid bills from 1827.80 Scott, whose candidature was promoted by the Yellow postmaster, Robert Porter, declared, 19 Dec. 1828, and commenced his personal canvass before contacting either party.81 Sporting crimson, he appealed to moderates in both parties to back him as a ‘liberal man’ who welcomed the duke of Wellington’s decision to concede Catholic relief and favoured ‘some protection’ for agriculture and commerce.82 Neither party would finance him, but the Lowthers condoned his purchase of their agents’ services at exorbitant rates and sanctioned his canvass of their out-voters.83 The Blues, who had yet to start a candidate, created a diversion by deliberately confusing Stephenson with his namesake cousin, the Member for Leominster, who had recently fled the country after bringing down Remingtons’ bank.84 Lawson confirmed that he would not stand at Graham’s election dinner, 16 Jan. 1829, Curwen’s son Henry declined, and the Whig barrister Henry Aglionby† of Newbiggin, whose family had represented the city before the Lowthers, was brought forward.85 Dobinson gained more canvassing time by delaying the writ and Captain Backhouse, the Dixons, the Howards, Pearson, Lawson and the Wyberghs rallied to his assistance. Proposed by Halton and Dobinson, he projected himself as a local pro-Catholic, pro-reform, pro-retrenchment candidate, who would ‘abrogate’ the game laws ‘root and branch’. Major Wilde, aided by Robertson of Edinburgh and the attorney Christopher Wannop, chaired Scott’s committee at the Bush. He was proposed by Lowry, with David Donald of Cummersdale seconding, and hissed for refusing to declare against Catholic emancipation.86 The contest was tumultuous and close fought and squibs abounded. Both candidates polled 99 on the first day, Scott trailed by 230-233 at the close of the second, but he was 336-303 ahead when the London out-voters arrived on the next and had a majority of 51 when the result was declared on the fourth day. He still had 43 new freemen and a coach-full from London unpolled.87 Aglionby, whose dinner was chaired by the Catholic heir to Corby Castle, Philip Henry Howard, attributed his defeat to his late start and the ‘20,000 golden reasons’ employed by Scott, whose bills eventually amounted to £30,000.88 The Blues spent £4,100, ‘much less’ than in 1827, ‘when far less things were achieved’.89 On the advice of Howard of Greystoke they appointed a committee headed by John Blamire, Dobinson, Gibbons and Pattison to ‘provide annual dinners for Carlisle freemen in Newcastle, Kendal, Liverpool, Manchester, etc., and make associations of them’, so that they would ‘have everything relating to freemen everywhere at fingers’ ends and be ready to start at any time’.90 The Lowthers, who did not expect to retain two seats at the next general election, chose to ignore Scott and ensured that he acquired no independent interest.91

Lushington divided with the Lowthers against Catholic emancipation in March 1829 when Scott voted for it, and favourable petitions to the Lords from the inhabitants, 7 Apr., countered hostile ones to both Houses from the diocesan clergy, 10, 25 Mar.92 Petitions presented to the Commons, 12 May 1829, 23 May 1830, against renewal of the East India Company’s charter, which Lushington naturally advocated, were sponsored by the Blues and signed by the ‘operative weavers’, who also petitioned the Lords for free trade in corn, 1 May 1829.93 Chancery proceedings brought against the corporation in July 1829 for using rate revenues to oppose the 1827 police bill remained unresolved until borough administration was reformed under the 1835 Act.94 Both Houses received the inhabitants’ petitions for mitigation of the criminal code, 18 Mar., 24 May, 21 June, and in favour of the administration of justice bill, 23 Mar., 2 Apr. 1830.95

A pre-election agreement between Lonsdale, the Broughams and Thanet to preserve the peace of the northern counties heralded a return to joint representation in Carlisle at the general election of 1830, when local opposition to the scheme focused on the choice of Philip Henry Howard of Corby Castle as the Blue nominee in preference to Aglionby, who had offered on 30 June.96 As directed by the ‘expert intriguer’ Henry Howard, Dobinson, Halton, George Gill and the diocesan registrar Robert Mounsey prepared for a poll and convened a party meeting for 12 July to adopt resolutions of thanks to Aglionby and of support for Philip Henry Howard. The latter’s attendance was insisted on because of the risk of ‘some hot headed freemen nominating a second Blue and forcing a contest’.97 Mounsey welcomed the elder Howard’s conciliatory approach to the corporation, signified by his decision to notify Dr. Blamire and William Hodgson personally of his son’s candidature.98 Letters of support were immediately forthcoming from duke of Devonshire, Graham and Lawson, but Henry Curwen held aloof, Pearson, Blaylock and the butcher John Graham were hostile, and it was with difficulty that Dobinson as chairman secured a requisition for Howard. ‘Sadly disappointed and vexed ... [Aglionby] endeavoured to impress upon the freemen that ... [Howard] would not bring in the out-voters’, but he accused him privately of trying to return his son ‘on the cheap’ and retired ‘with bad grace’, determined to cause annoyance ‘in every possible way’.99 The Blues conducted a successful canvass of the Kendal, Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle out-voters and Lowther, who had initially considered Lushington’s canvass of the Lancashire and Cumberland freemen ‘unnecessarily nervous’, conceded that Whig bickering and the popularity of a contest made expenditure unavoidable, and also that ‘persuading the low Blues to desist’ was better left to the Howards.100 He predicted that Algionby, who was supported by the butchers’ guild, ‘will get many votes as both sides will split upon him’ and observed that ‘there is no danger or apprehension, but yet it is a stir if countenanced by the butchers that will cost a thousand pounds’.101 Howard, who, being short in stature, was lampooned as an effeminate ‘Norfolk dwarf’, offered to reimburse £500 of Aglionby’s 1829 costs ‘on the principle of having reaped the benefit of that contest’. He based his claim to precedence, which Aglionby refused to acknowledge, on his willingness to spend to bring up the out-voters and the deterrent this had posed to Scott, who had gone to try his luck at Tregony to avoid a ‘second plucking’.102 Howard also took the precaution of writing to the mayor requesting

that if in the course of the election any impediment to the tranquil carrying of it on and convenient polling should take place by any disorderly conduct of any party, it is my intention to claim the benefit of the Act of 9 Geo. IV, chapter 59 (which I have the honour to submit to you) for dividing the polling place into compartments, where the number of electors exceed 600.103

Aglionby left Carlisle after arranging for correspondence proving the duplicity of the Howards and the Blue attorneys to be printed. His cousin Francis Aglionby of the Nunnery offered to deputize for him, and Lonsdale had to be dissuaded from starting a second Yellow with Lushington, whose support for the East India Company monopoly was severely criticized:104

It is his object and that of the company he represents, to keep you from the most extensive market in the world - China - with its population of 300 millions. That market, if opened to your produce, would give you such an increased demand for your goods that we should cease to hear the complaints of the poor weaver. We would once again see happy and smiling faces in our streets, and plenty and content through the land. ... The East India Company have entered into a wicked base conspiracy with the Bank of England ... by acting in concert overawe the ministers, confirm the ... Company’s charter. Let the manufacturers of Carlisle join the freemen and do their share of the duty which every man owes to his country in upsetting this most dangerous conspiracy.105

Proposed by John Hodgson of Penton and Gilpin, Lushington was shouted down despite pleas from Howard and his proposers William Halton and John Lowry. Projecting himself as Graham’s political successor, Howard promised to support reform, retrenchment and the abolition of colonial slavery and maintained that he would have made way for Aglionby had he ‘come upon a footing calculated to ensure success’. Aglionby’s nomination by two Yellows, William Randleson and George Ismay, both butchers, was withdrawn at the request of Lonsdale’s attorney William Nicholson Hodgson†, the mayor’s nephew, leaving Howard and Lushington unopposed.106 Relieved that their ‘additional expense’ was no more than ‘six or seven hundred pounds’, the Lowthers sought solace in the higher cost to the Howards, who ‘fed half the blackguards at Carlisle and gave seven shilling tickets, whilst ours were only three.’107

Lushington voted for and Howard against the Wellington ministry when they were brought down on the civil list, 15 Nov. 1830. Troops were mobilized that winter in anticipation of disturbances initiated by the weavers, who had been organized into armed divisions by unionists from Preston and remained in contact with William Cobbett† and the Lancashire and Lanarkshire radicals. The rioting was confined to a few arson attacks, of which those charged were acquitted at the April 1831 assizes.108 The Wesleyan Methodists petitioned against colonial slavery, 9, 10 Nov. 1830, but a similar petition agreed by ‘a few gentlemen’ in February 1831 and circulated for signature remained unpresented. The Carlisle Journal warned: ‘Till the reform question be settled, we doubt whether the country be in a tamper to discuss one of so much importance as slavery’.109 Most of the 40-50 principal tradesmen meeting at the Coffee House, 2 Dec. 1830, had approved a petition drafted by Mounsey, John Blamire, Dobinson, Pearson, Robert Dixon and Joseph Ferguson of Fisher Street for the ballot and a householder franchise at parliamentary and borough elections. Assisted by the Carlisle Journal, they also attacked Lonsdale and his contemporaries, the ‘council of ancients’ who dominated the corporation, to which another four septuagenarians had been elected at Michaelmas.110 Graham, first lord of the admiralty in Lord Grey’s administration and one of the architects of their reform bill, presented the petition without comment, 9 Feb., leaving Howard, who repudiated the ballot, to endorse it in what the Carlisle Journal described as ‘an ambiguous kind of panegyric’.111 Amid worsening distress and alarmed by the proposed 20 per cent tax on raw cotton, the spinners and manufacturers, led by John Dixon, Joseph Ferguson and Thomas Halton, met at the Bush, 16 Feb., and memorialized the chancellor of the exchequer Lord Althorp in protest, pointing out that the weavers (most of them handloom weavers working on linens and checks), whose average weekly wage had fallen from 8s. 6d. in 1825 to 5s. 6d., would gain nothing by the withdrawal of the duty on printed calico. They suggested replacing it with ‘a more equitable tax on property’.112 The manufacturers welcomed the proposed disfranchisement of the out-voters under the Grey ministry’s reform bill. Anticipating correctly that the mayor, the Rev. Thomas Lowry, who suggested raising rents to inflate the number of eligible voters, ‘with an understanding that something shall be returned’, and encouraged the guilds to petition to uphold their rights, would refuse to convene a meeting to petition for the reform bill, they called their own for 14 Mar., chaired by John Dixon.113 Both Houses received their petition on the 21st, in the name of the inhabitant householders.114 Three from the guilds protesting at the proposed disfranchisement of resident hereditary freemen and upholding their own rights were forwarded to Lushington and presented to the Commons, 29 Mar. Lonsdale’s agents had encouraged freemen and others with inchoate rights to sign.115 Support for the reform bill, which Howard supported and Lushington opposed, increased following the establishment of a Reform Association by John Dixon and others, 18 Apr. The former Member James, who had championed their cause at the Cumberland meeting, 15 Mar., accepted their requisition to stand with Howard at the general election in May, precipitated by the reform bill’s defeat.116 A committee chaired by Joseph Ferguson and a legal team headed by Mounsey was appointed in their interest, arrangements were made to transport and accommodate out-voters free of charge, and £300 was promised by the Lancashire reformers.117 Meanwhile the radical James Weemys addressed 3,000 weavers and others on The Sands, 1 May.118 The Blues sent for their out-voters that day, and Ellen Carlyle informed Lord Wallace:

Philip and his father were canvassing all yesterday in the rain, with Mr. James and his attendants; Col. Lushington is really ill and I believe in town; Lord Lowther and Sir A[dolphus John] Dalrymple* not far off. If strong enough to return two Members, he is to be proposed tomorrow and at all events Philip it is thought will be thrown overboard. Terrible rows are expected.119

Middle class backing for Howard had been ‘very considerably strengthened and confirmed’ by his support for the Association, but their exertions did little to allay the scepticism of the Blue hierarchy, and he later informed Graham that to secure their votes he had been obliged to ‘promise some of the freemen to endeavour to obtain for them that "every child of a freeman born, or the issue of any lawful marriage solemnized previously to the passing of the Act" may enjoy the privilege’.120 ‘Too ill’ to canvass personally, Lushington was deprived of Lowther’s protection by the contest for Cumberland and ridiculed for projecting himself as a moderate reformer.121 His defeat looked increasingly likely after a meeting of 5,000 townspeople on 25 Apr. denounced Henry Hunt* and all who assisted the anti-reformers by failing to support the bill’s advocates or by serving as Lowther bludgeon men.122 Hunt and Lowther were afterwards burnt in effigy.123 The Yellows appealed in vain to the impoverished weavers and failed to persuade Dalrymple, their late Member Graham’s son-in-law, to stand as their second man.124 Nevertheless, William Blamire still doubted whether the Blues could take both seats.125 Escorted to the hustings by a crowd of 20,000, Howard was proposed by William Halton and Wilson of Timperon, and James by John Graham the butcher and John Blamire. Richard Lowry and Donald nominated and demanded a poll for the absent Lushington, whose retirement ‘due to riotous proceedings’ was announced on William Nicholson Hodgson’s instructions before polling commenced on the second day. The reformers had each received 100 votes and Lushington 35, only seven of them from residents.126 Troops were summoned but not used. The anticipated Yellow petition alleging intimidation by a ‘military’ procession of reformers, which James and Howard formed part of’, and calling for the election to be voided was presented, 5 July 1831, but not proceeded with for want of Lowther support.127

The Members supported the reintroduced and revised reform bills and were taken to task by the Reform Association for failing to obey their directive to vote against the enfranchisement of £10 poor rate payers, 3 Feb. 1832. The Association claimed and feared that, if carried, it would have halved the Carlisle electorate and favoured the ‘aristocracy of wealth’, while excluding the ‘honest and industrious mechanic and the small tradesmen’.128 Over 2,000 attended a reform meeting chaired by the elder Howard of Corby Castle, 26 Sept., that petitioned the Lords in support of the bill, 3 Oct. 1831, and prompt pleas from the Association were ‘of incalculable value in preserving the peace of the city’ following its defeat.129 When a ministry headed by Wellington was contemplated in May 1832 the reformers petitioned for withholding supplies pending the reform bill’s enactment, and election committees were convened in anticipation of a dissolution.130 The Commons received their petition, 1 June, following the Grey ministry’s reinstatement.131 Bankers, tradesmen, freemen and inhabitants opposed to the general registry bill petitioned the Commons, 27 Jan., and the Lords received the inhabitants’ petition for the prompt emancipation of slaves, 24 May. Further legislation for the Newcastle-Carlisle railway and the Carlisle-Glasgow road was enacted in June, and the select vestries and overseers’ petition opposing the Scottish and Irish vagrants removal bill was received by the Commons, 17 July 1832.132 Celebrations to mark the reform bill’s passage were marred by fatalities when the hustings collapsed.133 The Act made Carlisle the election town for the new Cumberland East constituency and added the townships of Botchergate, Rickergate and part of Caldewgate to the borough constituency, where 977 electors (406 freemen and 571 £10 voters) were registered in November 1832.134

Party in-fighting over the appointment of Fergus Graham of Netherby as postmaster, nominations to the corporation, the withdrawal of government advertisements from the Carlisle Patriot for encouraging the establishment of a local branch of the Birmingham Political Union and support for the ballot and the Maynooth grant had festered since the autumn of 1831, and intensified at the general election of December 1832, when James and Howard, standing as Liberals, defeated the Conservative Sir John Malcolm*.135 The representation was closely contested a further 11 times before 1885, when the borough lost its second seat. The Liberal hegemony was breached only by the return of William Nicholson Hodgson as a Protectionist in 1847 and as a Conservative in 1865.