Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-22T18:30:18.147Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Left-Wing Whigs: Whitbread, The Mountain and Reform, 1809–1815

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2014

Dean Rapp
Dean Rapp*
Affiliation:
Wheaton College, Illinois
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the decade after 1807, the Whig Opposition was divided between the conservatives and the progressives, the former consisting of the Grenvillites and most Foxite-Whigs, particularly their leaders, while many of the latter associated together in the Mountain. This was led by Samuel Whitbread until his death in 1815. It was distinguished from the rest of the Opposition primarily by its independent, aggressively activist support for economical and parliamentary reform and its willingness to associate on these issues with the followers of Sir Francis Burdett and the metropolitan radicals. The Opposition as a whole, and more recently the Grenvillites, have been carefully examined as part of the ongoing study of political groups in this era, but as yet there is no systematic analysis of the Mountain. This paper identifies twenty-one Mountaineers and marshalls the evidence for the nature of their activities together. It also analyzes the sources and nature of their reformist ideology, their independence, their tactics as a pressure group and their relationship to the Whigs and the radicals.

I

Twelve Mountaineers were by birth aristocrats and gentry. The Mountain's independent character was in part shaped by country gentlemen like Thomas William Coke and Charles Callis Western. Although committed to Whiggism and the Whig party, such men also inherited in some respects the eighteenth-century country party mentality which believed that the executive was corrupt and prided itself on acting independently as a check upon its excesses. Young Lord Folkestone, even more independent, was committed to Whiggism but not at all to the Whig party for he thought of himself as an independent, virtuous aristocrat guarding against and exposing government corruption.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , Spring 1982 , pp. 35 - 66
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

My thanks to Ronald K. Huch and Randolph Trumbach for their critical comments on an earlier draft of this paper.

1 This particular division of the Opposition applies only to 1807 to 1817: the Mountain started forming in 1807, coalesced by 1809, and dissolved in the two years after Whitbread's death; the Grenvillite alliance of 1804 with the Foxite-Whigs ended in 1817.

2 The term “Mountain” alluded to the French Revolutionary radicals of the 1790s who were so called because they sat together high up at the back of the National Convention. The term as applied to Whitbread's group was used primarily by Bennet, Creevey, and Brougham. It was probably coined in the spring of 1809 although the first recorded instance of its use is Lord Lauderdale's letter of January 1810 in which he wondered whether Lord Holland had a “complete leaning to the Mountain” (University of Durham, Lauderdale to Grey, 9 Jan. 1810, Grey MSS.)

3 This paper considers William Madocks, G.L. Wardle, and Lord Cochrane as Burdettites.

4 For comments about the Mountain and partial lists of its members, see expecially Aspinall, Arthur, Lord Brougham and the Whig Party (Manchester, 1927), pp. 33, 38, 40Google Scholar; Cannon, John, Parliamentary Reform, 1640-1832 (Cambridge, 1973), p. 151Google Scholar; Davis, H.W.C., The Age of Grey and Peel (Oxford, 1929), p. 127Google Scholar; Halevy, Elie, England in 1815, trans, by Watkin, E.I. and Barker, D.A. (2nd rev. ed., London, 1949), p. 185Google Scholar; Mitchell, Austin, The Whigs in Opposition, 1815-1830 (Oxford, 1967), pp. 20–21Google Scholar; Roberts, Michael, The Whig Party, 1807-1812 (London, 1939), pp. 190, 198, 203, 206, 235, 277Google Scholar. Fulford, Roger in his Samuel Whitbread, 1764-1815 (London, 1967)Google Scholar does not discuss the Mountain. For the Grenvillites see Sack, James J., The Grenvillites, 1801-1829: Party Politics and Factionalism in the Age of Pitt and Liverpool (Urbana, Ill. 1979)Google Scholar.

5 See Table 1.

6 Huch, Ronald K., The Radical Lord Radnor: The Public Life of Viscount Folkestone, Third Earl of Radnor (1779-1869) (Minneapolis, Minn., 1977), pp. 4, 15, 30, 36, 44Google Scholar.

7 Wasson, E. A., “The Young Whigs: Lords Althorp, Milton and Tavistock and the Whig Party, 1809-1830” (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cambridge University, 1976), pp. 20, 24, 29-30, 33–34Google Scholar. Wasson includes all of the aristocratic Mountaineers among a larger group of “young Whigs” whom he argues had a progressive influence on the Whig party.

8 See Table 1.

9 Whitbread spoke four times more often than Romilly, the next most frequent speaker. The others were Brougham, Creevey, Hutchinson, Moore and Smith.

10 Lord Spencer to Thomas Grenville, 4 Apr. 1809, T. Grenville MSS. in British Museum Additional MSS. 41854, fo. 245.

11 Morning Chronicle, 23 Jan. 1810.

12 Medd, Patrick, Romilly: A Life of Sir Samuel Romilly (London, 1968), pp. 190–91Google Scholar.

13 1 Hansard 22:984 (24 Apr. 1812).

14 Whitbread to Tierney, 25 Dec. 1807, Roberts, , Whig Party, pp. 306–07Google Scholar.

15 See Rapp, Dean, “Samuel Whitbread (1764-1815): A Social and Political Study,” (unpublished Ph.D. thesis, The Johns Hopkins University, 1970), pp. 378–93Google Scholar. Whitbread married Grey's sister, daughter of the 1st Earl Grey.

16 Sack, , Grenvillites, p. 34Google Scholar. According to Sack's list (p. 133), of the twenty-two Grenvillites returned in 1807 only three represented English counties and none at all represented any English borough of over five-hundred voters.

17 1 Hansard 23:154 (8 May 1812); Examiner, 22 Apr. 1810.

18 See Table 1.

19 Davis, Richard W., Dissent in Politics, 1780-1830: The Political Life of William Smith, MP (London, 1971), pp. 26–27Google Scholar.

20 These same two families influenced two other Mountaineers: Romilly's reading of Howard's State of the Prisons was an early inspiration for his criminal law reform campaign, and Smith's religious and political thought was most influenced by Belsham's brother, the Rev. Thomas Belsham, the leading Unitarian thinker of his day (Medd, , Romilly, p. 50Google Scholar; Davis, , Dissent in Politics, p. 55Google Scholar).

21 Creevey's reformism was influenced by his intimate association from the 1790s with the circle of liberal Dissenters at Liverpool surrounding Dr. James Currie and Roscoe. Roscoe led the group which nominated him and Brougham during the 1812 general election at Liverpool (Gore, John, Creevey Papers [rev. ed., London, 1963], p. 3Google Scholar; New, Chester W., The Life of Henry Brougham to 1830 [Oxford, 1961], p. 70)Google Scholar.

22 Coke voted for Dunning's 1780 economical reform motion against the increasing influence of the crown and at one point also supported the moderate parliamentary reform campaign of Christopher Wyvill's Yorkshire Association. Both Smith and Romilly belonged to the more radical Society for Constitutional Information.

23 Mitchell, L.G., Charles James Fox and the Disintegration of the Whig Party, 1782-1794 (Oxford, 1971), pp. 176–77Google Scholar.

24 Mitchell, , Disintegration of the Whig Party, pp. 179, 195, 201Google Scholar; Cobbett, , Parliamentary History of England from the earliest period to the year 1803, 30: 925 (6 May 1793), 33: 734–35 (26 May 1797)Google Scholar. Of the ten Mountaineers who were over forty in 1809, only Creevey, Moore and Hutchinson had not participated in the reform campaigns of the late 18th century.

25 Dinwiddy, J.R., “Charles James Fox and the People,” History, 1v, no. 185 (Oct. 1970), 343, 354, 356Google Scholar.

26 Whitbread was undoubtedly the wealthiest middle-class Mountaineer—in 1809 his gross income was nearly £31,000.

27 Rapp, , “Samuel Whitbread,” pp. 142–46Google Scholar.

28 Wasson, , “Young Whigs,” pp. 69-70, 81–82Google Scholar.

29 Sentinel (Dublin), July, 1815Google Scholar.

30 University College, Library, London, J.W. Ward to Henry Brougham, 1812, Brougham MSS. no. 20466.

31 Phipps, Edmund, Memoir of the Political and Literary Life of Robert Plumer Ward, Esq., (London, 1850), i, 398–99Google Scholar.

32 Ward, P.P. (ed.), The Complete Works of William Hazlitt, (London, 1930–1934), xvii, 9Google Scholar.

33 This was not the Dissenting academy but a fashionable school owned by the Newcome family.

34 Wasson, , “Young Whigs,” pp. 18–19Google Scholar.

35 Whitfield House, Northumberland, Whitbread to Creevey, 28 Jan. 1809, Creevey MSS., transcripts, (consulted by permission of J.C. Blackett Ord).

36 Of the ten characteristic Mountain reform divisions, Creevey voted for 9, more than did any other M.P. See Table 4. He also presented six economical reform motions, more than did any other Mountaineer. For his politics see the article by Huch, Ronald K. in Baylen, Joseph O. and Gossman, Norbert J., eds., Biographical Dictionary of Modern British Radicals Since 1770: Volume 1, 1770-1832 (Brighton, Sussex, 1979), pp. 99–102Google Scholar.

37 Folkestone to Creevey, 21 July 1811, 9 Jan. 1814, Brougham to Creevey, n.d., Creevey to Mrs. Creevey, 11 June 1812, Creevey MSS.

38 Bedfordshire Record Office, Bedford, Brougham to Whitbread, [1812], Whitbread MSS., no. 2544; Brougham to Creevey, 18 July 1812, Creevey MSS.; John Hunt to Brougham, 16 July 1812, Creevey MSS. For the general context of the Whigs and the press at this time see Asquith, Ivan, “The Whig Party and the Press in the early Nineteenth Century,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xlix, no. 120 (Nov. 1976), 264–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Whitbread was among those Whigs who financially assisted Lovell when he set up the Statesman in 1806 (Lovell to Whitbread, 11 Oct. 1814, Whitbread MSS., no. 5055). When Whitbread discontinued his subscription, Lovell remarked to a friend that “Whitbread is almost the only Member in the House that has afforded us any opportunity of noticing for some time past, & if he does not countenance the Paper … I shall feel very little inclination to proceed” (Lovell to T. Adkin, 25 Nov. 1813, Whitbread MSS., no. 5052).

40 See for example, the Statesman, 23 Apr. 1810, 8 May, 1810; Examiner, 26 Feb. 1809, 21 Apr. 1810, 31 May 1812. Two other radical newspapers, Henry White's Independent Whig and Cobbett's Political Register, did not praise Whitbread as frequently and fulsomely and were more critical and suspicious of him as a Whig.

41 Statesman, 16 May 1810.

42 Charles Abbot to Whitbread, 12 May 1812, Whitbread MSS., no. 5648. The other leaders consulted were Lord Castlereagh, George Ponsonby, George Canning, Richard Ryder and William Wilberforce.

43 B.M. Add. MSS, Holland to Grey, 19 Dec. 1812, Holland House MSS. In March, 1813 J.W. Ward observed that “all those that maintain high popular doctrines … are more attached to [Whitbread] than to any other person” (Romilly, S.H., (ed.), Letters to ‘Ivy’ from the First Earl of Dudley [London, 1905], p. 198)Google Scholar.

44 In November 1807 William Windham complained of those “who have formed themselves into a sort of distinct sect as the supposed lovers of peace.” City Library, Sheffield, Windham to Earl Fitzwilliam, 26 Nov. 1807, Wentworth Woodhouse MSS. Creevey, Combe, Ossulston, Romilly, and Western were probably among those Tierney had in mind when he speculated that eight or ten of those at the January 19, 1809 party meeting would have voted for a peace amendment of Whitbread's had he presented it (Tierney to Grey, 19 Jan. 1809. Grey MSS.).

45 1 Hansard 12(1, 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20, 22, Feb. 1809). The other Mountaineers who particated were Brand, Creevey, Combe, Hanbury-Tracey, Lyttelton, Romilly, Smith and Western. A week prior to the investigation, some Grenvillites speculated that Whitbread would take the lead of about twenty radicals “who are urging him to act for himself, and to make a hit at abuses and to support reform.” 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, , Memoirs of the Court and Cabinets of George the Third, 4 vols. (London, 1853–1855), iv, 304Google Scholar.

46 Spencer to Thomas Grenville, 4 Apr. 1809, T. Grenville MSS. in B.M. Add. MSS. 41854, fo. 245.

47 1 Hansard 13:639-40 (15 Mar. 1809), 708-09 (17 Mar. 1809). Only Tavistock and Smith did not vote for Wardle's motion: Tavistock was elected to the Commons only the day before, and Smith believed (unlike the other Mountaineers) that there was not sufficient grounds for condemning the duke (Davis, , Dissent in Politics, pp. 140–41Google Scholar). Those not voting with Turton were Coke (who was out of town), Ossulston, Tavistock and Smith. Ponsonby and Tierney voted for neither motion.

48 1 Hansard 13:719 (20 Mar. 1809). Althorp's motion was defeated in favor of a government amendment to it.

49 Hansard 13:301 (10 Mar. 1809).

50 The seven motions were: Folkestone's (Apr. 17, see Table 3) for an inquiry into abuses in government; Hamilton's (Apr. 25, defeated) accusing Castlereagh of misconduct; Whitbread's (June 2, withdrawn) for prohibiting placemen and sinecurists from sitting in the Commons; Creevey's (June 8, negatived) against appropriating £9,000 to purchase an official residence for the President of the Board of Control; Whitbread's (June 8, defeated) for limiting the number of placemen and pensioners in the Commons; Folkestone's (June 12, see Table 3) on the title of Curwen's Reform Bill; and Ossulston's (June 13, negatived) for regulating or abolishing all sinecures.

51 The seven Mountaineers were Combe, Creevey, Folkestone, Hanbury-Tracey, Hutchinson, Lyttelton, and Western. Henry Parnell and Wardle were the other two.

52 See Burdett's criticism of Whitbread's June 8 motion (1 Hansard 14:952 8 June 1809).

53 For these views see the following speeches: Creevey, 1 Hansard 14:116 (20 Apr. 1809); Folkestone, 1 Hansard 14:114-115 (20 Apr. 1809); Lyttelton, 1 Hansard 14:390 (5 May 1809), Smith, 1 Hansard 14:720 (19 May 1809); Whitbread, 1 Hansard 14:935-936, 957 (8 June 1809).

54 Sack, , Grenvillites, pp. 144–45Google Scholar.

55 Brougham to Creevey, 7 Feb. 1814, Creevey MSS.

56 All but Creevey, Halsey, Ord, Romilly, and Tavistock either supported Burdett's parliamentary reform motion (June 15) or attended public reform meetings. Folkestone feared that if the representation were made more popular, propertied men would lose influence (Huch, , Folkestone, p. 50Google Scholar).

57 For Hutchinson see 1 Hansard 14:1065-68 (15 June 1809). For Whitbread see 1 Hansard 13:705 (17 Mar. 1809), 14: 513 (11 May 1809); 14: 957 (8 June 1809); the Times, 30 Mar. 1809.

58 See Byng's speeches at Middlesex county meetings reported in the Examiner, 16 Apr. 1809 and 13 Aug. 1809; Huch, , Folkestone, p. 50Google Scholar

59 1 Hansard 14:1041-71 (15 June 1809). Combe, Hanbury-Tracey, Hutchinson, Moore, and Western supported it; Lyttelton paired. Whitbread would also have supported it but he was in Bedfordshire; he suspected Burdett of deliberately bringing it forward while he was out of town (Whitbread to Creevey, 14 June 1809, Creevey MSS.). For Brougham's reformism (he was not then in the Commons) see New, Brougham, pp. 149, 159.

60 When he learned that Burdett intended to move the thanks of the House to Wardle he peevishly objected to Creevey that “on the Resolution of April 1805 [Melville]I had a Majority of the House and the Whole Country with me, but nobody thought of thanking me— Pray stop it” (Whitbread to Creevey, n.d., Creevey MSS.).

61 The Times, 30 Mar. 1809.

62 Dinwiddy, J.R., “Sir Francis Burdett and Burdettite Radicalism,” History lx, no. 213 (Feb. 1980), 27Google Scholar; Dinwiddy, , “Fox and the People,” pp. 346–49Google Scholar; Main, J. M., “Radical Westminster, 1807-1820,” Historical Studies (Australia and New Zealand), xii, no. 46 (April 1966), 189Google Scholar.

63 1 Hansard, 14:513-16 (11 May 1809).

64 Times, 30 Mar. 1809.

65 Grey to Lord Grenville, 28 Mar. 1809, Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on the Manuscripts of J.B. Fortescue, (London, 1892–1927), ix, 284Google Scholar; Grenville to T. Grenville, 31 Mar. 1809, T. Grenville MSS. in B.M. Add. MSS., 41853, fo. 11.

66 T. Grenville to Lord Grenville, 29 Mar. 1809, Manuscripts of Fortescue, ix, 284Google Scholar.

67 See for example the favorable comments regarding Whitbread's chances for office in the Statesman, 18 May 1812.

68 Dinwiddy, J.R., “‘The Patriotic Linen-Draper’: Robert Waithman and the Revival of Radicalism in the City of London, 1795-1818,” Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research, xlvi, no. 113 (May 1973), 73, 79, 84–87Google Scholar.

69 See for example Waithman to Creevey, 6, 9, 10 Jan. 1810, Creevey MSS.; Waithman to Creevey, [6 Apr. 1810] (transcript), Whitbread MSS., no. 2509.

70 Whitbread informed Lord Grenville that he was consciously cultivating Waithman. See Chewton House, Chewton Mendip, Somerset, Whitbread to Grenville, 25 Apr. 1810 (draft), Waldegrave MSS., (consulted by permission of the Earl Waldegrave).

71 Romilly, , Letters to ‘Ivy,’ p. 103Google Scholar.

72 Grenville to T. Grenville, 9 Apr. 1809. T. Grenville MSS. in B.M. Add. MSS., 41853, fo. 25; T. Grenville to Grenville, 20-23 Apr. 1810 and Grey to Lord Grenville, 26 Apr. 1810, Manuscripts of Fortescue, x, 26–28Google Scholar; Lord Grenville to Whitbread, 23 Apr. 1810, Waldegrave MSS; Lord Grenville to Whitbread, 1 May 1810 (copy), Grey MSS.

73 Whitbread to Grenville, 25 Apr. 1810, Waldegrave MSS. Whitbread, Brand and Lyttelton all publicly defended their attendance at public reform meetings, Brand claiming that such meetings did no harm, and Lyttelton arguing that public opinion should be treated with respect (1 Hansard 14:387-392 [5 May 1809]).

74 Huch, , Folkestone, p. 54Google Scholar.

75 Romilly explained that attendance at public dinners was “unbecoming the dignity” of a Lord Chancellor, should he ever attain that office (Memoirs of the Life of Sir Samuel Romilly, ed. by his sons, [London, 1840], ii, 412)Google Scholar.

76 Miller, Naomi Churgin, “John Cartwright and Radical Parliamentary Reform, 1808-1819,” English Historical Review lxxxiii, no. 329 (Oct. 1968), 712–16Google Scholar.

77 See the following in the Whitbread MSS.: Whitbread to Duke of Bedford, 15 Nov. 1808, no. 4430; Cartwright to Duke of Bedford, 19 Nov. 1808, no. 4432; Cartwright to Whitbread, 17 Mar. 1809, no. 4435; Whitbread to Cartwright, [1809], no. 4436; List of Stewards for Mr. Cartwright's Reform Dinner, [1809], no. 4438.

78 Examiner, 1 May 1809. Smith was booed when he pointed out the difficulties that the reformers would encounter in attempting to achieve their goals.

79 Morning Chronicle, 3 May 1809.

80 Whitbread's unsuccessful motion asking the Commons to consider economical reform received general party support. Hamilton's (supported only by Folkestone and Ord, and negatived) attempted to revive his 1809 charges against Castlereagh.

81 Whitbread gave debating support to five petitions, more than any other MP, and said of the Westminister petition's call for reform that “the country not only desired it, but the House had need of it” (1 Hansard 16:728 [17 Apr. 1810]). Eight other Mountaineers also supported the petitions. For radicalism during the Burdett affair see Dinwiddy, , “Burdettite Radicalism,” pp. 21–22Google Scholar.

82 Two petitions from Middlesex were presented by Byng; the Livery of London's petition by Combe; Coventry's by Moore; and Sheffield's, and Cartwright's two petitions, by Whitbread.

83 1 Hansard 17:123-65 (21 May 1810). For this paper 130 division lists have been compiled. An analysis of them shows that 100% of the Mountaineers voted together on 2 divisions; 90 to 99% on 5; 80 to 89% on 9; and 70 to 79% on 14, for a total of 30 divisions in which at least 70% or more of them voted together. Brand's division is third highest on this list. For the motion see Cannon, Parliamentary Reform, pp. 159-60.

84 Statesman, 9 May 1810; Bedford to Whitbread, 5 May 1810, Whitbread to Bedford, 6, 9, May 1810, Waldegrave MSS.

85 Statesman, 20 Apr. 1810; the Times, 20 Apr. 1810. See Table 2. Petty later remarked at the “revewed appearances of a schism with Whitbread” because of the dinner (Petty to Lady Holland, 1 May 1810, Holland House MSS. in B.M. Add. MSS., 51689).

86 Statesman, 24 May 1810; Stirling, A.M.W., Coke of Norfolk and His Friends, (London, 1908), ii, 90–91Google Scholar.

87 Cartwright to Whitbread, 17 Mar. 1810, 12, 28, May 1810, Whitbread MSS., nos. 2506, 4445, 4448.

88 Miller, , “Cartwright,” pp. 715–16Google Scholar; Roberts, , Whig Party, pp. 286–89Google Scholar.

89 Cartwright to Whitbread, 28, 29 Jan., 6 Mar., 25 May, 1811, Whitbread MSS., nos. 4450, 4451, 4452, 4455; List of those invited to the March 1811 select meeting of Friends to a Constitutional Reform of Parliament, Whitbread MSS., no. 4453; Morning Chronicle, 11 June 1811; Cartwright, F.D., ed., Life and Correspondence of Major Cartwright, (London, 1826), ii, 373–75Google Scholar; MajorCartwright, John , Six Letters to the Marquis of Tavistock (London, 1812), pp. 3–4Google Scholar. Burdett was the only other M.P. besides Byng at the dinner. See Table 2.

90 Examiner, 5 May 1811; Brand to Whitbread, 3 May 1811, Whitbread MSS., no. 2530 (See Table 2); Morning Chronicle, 13 Mar. 1811.

91 Roberts, , Whig Party, p. 291Google Scholar.

92 1 Hansard 20:564-68 (11 June 1811).

93 1 Hansard 20:510 (6 June 1811). The motion was defeated. Ponsonby opposed it.

94 The four motions not discussed in the text are: Brougham's (Jan. 21) against the crown's use of funds from the Droits of Admiralty (seconded by Brand and defeated); Creevey's (Feb. 11) asking for a committee to inquire into abuses in the use of revenue from the Leeward Island duties (supported by Whitbread, Folkestone, and Moore, and defeated); Brougham's (Feb. 25) for a select committee of inquiry regarding the Droits of Admiralty (negatived); and Bennet's (May 7) asking for an account of profits of the office of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod (agreed to).

95 1 Hansard 21:113-24 (9 Jan. 1812). See Table 3. Others later took up the campaign against the sinecure and it was abolished with general party support.

96 1 Hansard 23:73-88 (7 May 1812); Grey to Lord Grenville, 15 April 1812, Manuscripts of Fortescue, x, 237–38Google Scholar; Grey to Grenville, n.d., 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, , Memoirs of the Court of England During the Regency, (London, 1856), i, 295Google Scholar; Whitbread to Creevey, 4 May 1812, Bennet to Creevey, 31 May 1815, Creevey MSS. See Table 3.

97 1 Hansard 22:29-30 (18 Mar. 1812), 23:99-151 (8 May 1812). The motion was defeated. See Cannon, Parliamentary Reform, pp. 162-63.

98 Statesman, 11 May 1812. See Table 2.

99 Bennet to Brougham, [1812], Brougham MSS., no. 32131.

100 Brougham to Whitbread, 1812, Whitbread MSS., no. 1951. Creevey was returned for Thetford, but the Whig grandees found no seat for Brougham.

101 Robert Fairbrother to Whitbread, 7 Oct. 1812, Whitbread MSS., no. 1916; Memoirs of Romilly, ii, 263Google Scholar. After Romilly's defeat he was returned from Arundel.

102 See the articles on Folkestone and Hamilton by Huch in Baylen, and Gossman, , Biographical Dictionary of Radicals, pp. 202, 381Google Scholar.

103 Burdett, the only M.P. in the “Union,” was also a member of the Hampden Club, along with Lord Cochrane, W. Geary, R. Knight, Madocks, W. Maule and R.P. Scudamore. None of these M.P.s except Madocks had any close connections to the Mountain, although Maule did attend two Livery reform dinners. See Cartwright, , Correspondence of Cartwright, ii, 379–83Google Scholar.

104 North Riding Record Office, Yorkshire, Whitbread to Wyvill, 30 Sept. 1813, Wyvill MSS.; Cartwright to Whitbread, 23 Nov. 1814, Whitbread MSS., no. 4467.

105 Roberts, , Whig Party, pp. 5, 296Google Scholar.

106 The motion was defeated (1 Hansard 25:500-516 [1 Apr. 1813]). The other two Mountain reform motions of 1813 were presented by Creevey who twice proposed abolishing the office of Joint-Paymaster of the forces, for a saving of £2000. See Table 3 for the first motion; Whitbread and Western were the only supporters for his second, which he withdrew.

107 1 Hansard 26:990-91 (30 June 1813).

108 Ibid., col. 997. Burdett presented the petition, which was rejected by 75 to 11.

109 Statesman, 15 Apr. 1813,24 June 1814, 1 July 1815; Creevey to Brougham, 6 Apr. 1813, SirMaxwell, Herbert, The Creevey Papers, (London, 1904), i, 182Google Scholar.

110 Out of the 16 divisions for which 80% or more of the Mountaineers voted, five were regarding the Catholics; on one they voted unanimously.

111 1 Hansard 20:705-10 (18 June 1811). Brougham, Hutchinson, Whitbread, and Smith gave him debating support; in the division, Brougham was a teller and the other three voted for it, along with Creevey, Folkestone, and Ossulston.

112 1 Hansard 21:1275-96 (13 Mar. 1812), 22:374-93 (15 Apr. 1812), 31:924-42 (21 June 1815). Bennet, Romilly, and Whitbread supported Burdett. Bennet was supported the first time by Brougham, Smith, and Romilly and the second by Moore, Romilly, and Smith. None of the motions passed.

113 See Table 3. Romilly complained about the few Whigs present at the debate on his Private Stealing Bill (Memoirs of Romilly, ii, 317Google Scholar). Whitbread, unavoidably out of town, instructed Creevey to insert a notice in the newspapers explaining that he would have supported it (Whitbread to Creevey, 3 May 1810, Creevey MSS.).

114 1 Hansard 21:838 (17 Feb. 1812). See Table 3.

115 Morning Chronicle, 14 July 1812. See Table 3.

116 Huch, , Folkestone, pp. 71–73Google Scholar; Brougham to Holland, 6 Apr. 1811, Holland House MSS. in B.M. Add. MSS. See Table 3. The division was among the 30 for which 70% or more of the Mountaineers voted. Brougham defended the Hunts (in 1811) and Lovell (in 1812) at their trials, and in 1814 and 1815 Whitbread presented petitions from Lovell while he was in prison.

117 Huch, , Folkestone, p. 72Google Scholar.

118 Sack, , Grenvillites, pp. 131–32Google Scholar.

119 The Mountain's isolation in the Commons is signified by the fact that it never obtained higher than forty votes for any of its ten reform divisions, whereas on six of them the majorities against ranged between 119 and 178.

120 See Table 4.

121 See Table 2.

122 The Mountaineers were also distinguished from most other M.P.s by their strong support for five motions of the Burdettites, none of which were supported by the Whig leaders: Wardle's (1809), Madocks's against Castlereagh and Perceval (1809), and Burdett's for parliamentary reform (1809), against flogging (1811) and for receiving the Nottingham petition (1813). All except Tavistock voted for at least one. Whitbread, Combe, Hutchinson, Moore, Ossulston and Western were the only other M.P.s besides Burdett who voted for four; and Brand, Creevey, Folkestone, Lyttelton, and Hanbury-Tracey were among the twelve who supported three.

123 See Table 4.

124 For example, Bennet, inspired by Whitbread and Romilly, went on to campaign against the game laws and the severity of the penal code.

125 Smith, E.A., Whig Principles and Party Politics: Earl Fitzwilliam and the Whig Party, 1748-1833 (Manchester, 1975), pp. 392–93Google Scholar; Mitchell, A., “The Whigs and Parliamentary Reform before 1830,” Historical Studies (Australia and New Zealand) xii, no. 45 (Oct. 1965), 42Google Scholar.

126 After Whitbread's death the inner circle continued to refer to the Mountain, but apparently the Mountaineers did not function together as much as they had under Whitbread. Although Brougham in early 1816 did outline a complete campaign for the session, Bennet reported in July that Brougham had done everything without any help except that of Folkestone. Brougham was too distrusted to take over Whitbread's role and Creevey could not serve as the Mountain's informal whip for he was on the Continent between 1814 and 1816. See Maxwell, , Creevey Papers, i, 247-48, 257-58, 264–65Google Scholar.