Glasgow, situated on the banks of the River Clyde, had been transformed since 1750 into a ‘major centre of international commerce and industry’. The North American tobacco trade, the source of much of the town’s prosperity in the eighteenth century, had collapsed by 1800, but the profits helped to finance industrial development, particularly in textiles. Since the 1790s the application of steam power had encouraged the concentration of cotton spinning and weaving into mills in and around the town, a process that was assisted by Glasgow’s proximity to the Lanarkshire coalfield. Trade with the West Indies was crucial, accounting for 65 per cent of Glasgow’s exports by value in 1813, mostly textiles, and involving the supply of sugar and rum to its refineries and distilleries. Other industries included carpet and glass making, chemicals, brewing, metal working and engineering, but much of this was still carried on on a small scale. Glaswegians also controlled many of the mining and manufacturing enterprises in the surrounding region. However, the ‘strangely lop-sided’ economy, with its ‘overwhelming dependency on textiles’, rendered Glasgow extremely vulnerable to fluctuations in trade. The population rose from 147,043 in 1821 to 202,426 in 1831, part of a longer-term explosion in numbers which was overwhelming the poor relief and sanitation systems and making Glasgow ‘a by-word for urban squalor and filth’. The council, which ‘retained a reputation for efficiency’, compared to Aberdeen and Edinburgh, had 32 members, nominated from the ranks of the Merchants’ House and Trades’ House, all of whom resided in or near the town; an elite group of wealthy merchants predominated.
In 1820 Houston announced his retirement, owing to poor health, and Campbell promptly offered in his place. Finlay, aware that Campbell could ‘count upon the support of Dumbarton ... and Renfrew’, the returning burgh, which left ‘no room to doubt the result of a contest’, reluctantly decided not to come forward and was returned again for Malmesbury. James Ewing of Strathleven, a West India merchant, stated in a published address that the retirement of his ‘friend’ Houston and the (unexplained) ‘opinion that prevailed respecting the views of Mr. Campbell’ had given him a ‘fair field’ on which to stand, but subsequent inquiry had persuaded him ‘for a time to resign my pretensions’, although the ‘fairness and propriety’ of his ambitions had been ‘universally acknowledged’. Glasgow town council resolved unanimously to support Campbell. On election day the delegates from Dumbarton, Glasgow and Renfrew voted for Campbell, but the Rutherglen delegate reportedly voted for James Oswald of Shieldhall, a wealthy Glasgow merchant who was ‘not a candidate’; Campbell was ‘declared duly elected’.
During the years of economic insecurity following the end of the Napoleonic wars Glasgow was ‘racked as ... never ... before by social tensions and violent disturbances’, and the weavers in particular were drawn towards radical protest. Cavalry were stationed in the town throughout the autumn of 1819 and in February 1820 a number of delegates from radical societies were arrested, although the lord advocate, Sir William Rae*, subsequently reported to Lord Melville, the Liverpool ministry’s Scottish manager, that connections with ‘the horrible [Cato Street] plot in London’ were tenuous. The general election passed off quietly, but two days afterwards posters appeared on walls in Glasgow and ‘all the manufacturing towns and villages for a dozen miles around’, from the ‘committee of organization for forming a provisional government’, calling for a general strike to effect a political revolution. It was evident to the Tory Glasgow Herald that the address was ‘of English composition, from its dwelling much upon Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights, in which Scotland has no interest’, but the order to strike was admittedly ‘too implicitly obeyed’. ‘All the weavers in Glasgow and its suburbs’ abandoned their work (some allegedly because of intimidation), the ‘cotton spinners and some of the machine makers and founders’ followed suit, as did the ‘colliers in the country round’. Glasgow’s streets were ‘crowded with [workers] walking about idle’, though exhibiting a ‘perfectly peaceable’ demeanour, and it seemed that ‘everything bears more the mark of an attempt to intimidate by numbers, than to strike a blow’. The ‘formidable’ military presence, which included cavalry, artillery, a rifle brigade and volunteers, with more on their way, allowed little scope for ‘open resistance’, and the lord provost issued a proclamation imposing a night-time curfew. Several incidents occurred in the vicinity, where radicals with pikes, muskets and pistols were arrested, and it was reported that when a ‘general muster of the radical force’ was attempted at various locations one night, with the intention of marching into the town, the ‘numbers were so totally deficient that the enterprise was abandoned’. The Herald declared that the populace had been ‘completely deluded and duped by ... English emissaries, who assured them of a simultaneous movement over the whole of Lancashire and West of Yorkshire’, and the realization that no external support would be forthcoming had finally broken ‘a conspiracy which appears to have been more extensive than almost anyone imagined’, but lacking in leadership. Within days most people had returned to work. At a meeting of merchants, manufacturers and proprietors of public works, 11 Apr., Finlay, Ewing and Oswald took the lead in carrying resolutions not to ‘re-employ those who took up arms or encouraged it, or who join treasonable confederacy in future’. Eighteen Glaswegians were convicted of treason in July 1820; two were executed and the rest transported.
The news of the withdrawal of the bill of pains and penalties against Queen Caroline in November 1820 occasioned ‘some rather unpleasant demonstrations of joy’ in Glasgow. Large crowds immediately ‘gathered in the principal streets’ and ‘amused themselves with firing guns and pistols, setting off squibs, etc.’, but patrols by the police and dragoon guards ensured that the day ‘concluded without any serious affray’. Next evening, however, ‘a scene of disorder and riot highly disgraceful’ to the town was witnessed. Certain individuals, without consulting the magistrates, illuminated their shops and houses, and this ‘proved like a watchword to the populace’, who ‘soon broke out into acts of outrage ... firing guns and pistols ... carrying along the streets burning tar barrels’, which caused a number of fires, and ‘throwing stones and brickbats against the windows of the principal houses’. The civil and military forces were called out and the presence of cavalry gave a ‘check ... to the violence of the mob’, who ‘gradually dispersed’. Next morning the lord provost, John Alston, issued a proclamation imposing a night-time curfew and warning that force would be used. The streets were ‘extremely crowded with people, male and female’ that evening, ‘looking at the illuminations’, but ‘little or no damage was done’. It was felt that there had been less destruction than in Edinburgh, because the demonstrations were more spontaneous. Alston invited some 60 selected individuals, with ‘strong predilections in favour of ministers’, to attend a ‘private conference’ in the town hall, 11 Dec., and organize a loyal address to the king. However, news of these proceedings leaked out and on the appointed day ‘a printed placard was carried through the town announcing that a public meeting was to be held’, with the result that a ‘considerable number of the lower ranks rushed into the hall and caused some disturbance’. After ordering the crowd to disperse, Alston and his friends adjourned to a nearby hotel where they arranged their address, which was signed by a ‘considerable number of the most respectable merchants, bankers and manufacturers’. The town council, Merchants’ House and University senate sent similar addresses. Alston rejected a requisition, signed by over 300 individuals, for a public meeting to consider an address calling for the dismissal of ministers, and it was convened instead at John Street chapel, 18 Dec. 1820, with Oswald in the chair and ‘upwards of 2,500 people’ present. Robert Grahame of Whitehill, a lawyer and veteran reformer, and the banker James Dennistoun moved a series of resolutions which were ‘carried unanimously’, and the meeting was over in half an hour. The resolutions condemned the way in which agricultural, commercial and manufacturing interests had been ‘sacrificed’ by ministers, whose ‘wasteful and unnecessary establishments and expenditure’, ‘ruinous system of taxation’ and ‘impolitic restrictions ... upon foreign trade’, had reduced the ‘great body of the people’ to the ‘most grievous suffering and distress’. The conduct of foreign policy, characterized by a ‘constant partiality to every kind of despotism’, had led to a ‘breach of faith’ with ‘weaker states ... seeking to enjoy free or popular forms of government’. By raising ‘continued false alarms’ and employing spies and informers, ministers had endeavoured to ‘create a mutual distrust and hatred between the rich and the poor’, and used this to justify ‘attacking the constitutional privileges and liberties of the people’. They had also resisted reform of the representative system, ‘the grand source and origin of our present calamities and distresses’, while their ‘unconstitutional proceedings’ against the queen had made them ‘objects of public aversion and distrust’. A committee was formed to organize the resulting address, which was sent to London with 18,065 signatures attached to it.
Glasgow’s chamber of commerce petitioned the Commons for inquiry into Britain’s commercial system, 16 May 1820, blaming the prevailing distress in ‘great degree’ on ‘impolitic restrictions imposed upon trade’, asserting the principle of a ‘division of labour’ between countries, which produced ‘beneficial exchanges’, and urging ministers to ‘retrace’ their steps and restore the system to ‘a free state’, with ‘the least possible injury to individuals’. This should not be made contingent on reciprocity deals, as it was ‘our interest to adopt the measure independent of any such consideration’. On the other hand, several petitions were sent to the Commons from Glasgow merchants and ship owners against revision of the timber duties, which might endanger the North American trade, 23 June 1820, 14 Mar., 9 May 1821, although the last also called for the removal of restrictions on the importation of Canadian corn, which provided the wherewithal for purchases of British manufactures.
Although Glasgow’s economy recovered during the early 1820s, thanks largely to a boom in cotton textile manufacturing, by 1826 there was another slump and the effects of mass unemployment were exacerbated by a banking crisis and a bad harvest.
In March 1824 Finlay apparently told the foreign secretary Canning that ‘party is nearly extinct’ in Glasgow, ‘where it used to run higher than in almost any other place’. The following year Campbell informed Melville that he had sounded another constituency, presumably Renfrewshire, but did not ‘dare risk a certainty for an uncertainty’ and had therefore pledged himself to his ‘Glasgow friends’.
Whereas Glasgow town council and the weavers petitioned Parliament for revision of the corn laws in late 1826, certain inhabitants, the tailors, and Rutherglen’s town council and weavers petitioned for their repeal in early 1827.
In the context of renewed depression in the cotton textile industry, one of the ‘most numerous and highly respectable public meetings’ held in Glasgow for many years was summoned by requisition, 5 May 1829, to petition against renewal of the East India Company’s charter. Finlay, who had ‘no hesitation whatever in acknowledging it was on selfish grounds he acted’, took the lead, supported by Oswald and Robert Dalglish, in carrying resolutions demanding the removal of ‘all the disabilities to free commercial intercourse’ east of the Cape, which would ‘open up a wide field to the mercantile enterprise of this country at present languishing from want of profitable employment’. They also called for an end to restrictions on the settlement of Britons in India, asserting that the ‘character of the native population’ might thus be ‘elevated ... in the scale of moral and responsible agents by the force of British energy and example’, helping them to ‘gradually throw off the trammels of caste by which they are enslaved ... become more orderly and useful subjects, and more ... important in a commercial point of view to this country’. The resulting petitions were presented to Parliament, 14 May, 1 June 1829.
At the dissolution in the summer of 1830 Finlay announced his candidature, informing Glasgow town council that he was responding to ‘the earnest entreaty of friends’ in the belief that he ‘could better serve the great India and China question in than out of the House’. Campbell soon afterwards confirmed that he would offer again, prompting Garden to observe that the council ‘could not think on this occasion of deserting’ him. Nevertheless, fears were expressed in Scottish Tory circles that Campbell might be ‘turned out’. Renfrew elected provost Robert King as its delegate to support Campbell, but Rutherglen and Dumbarton unanimously elected provosts Andrew Harvie and Jacob Dixon respectively, ‘in Finlay’s interest’. Glasgow’s verdict was decisive, as it was the returning burgh. Stewart Smith, dean of the Merchants’ House, and Bailie Buchanan nominated Garden as delegate, while Bailie Matthew Fleming and Alston proposed Bailie Hugh Robertson, a supporter of Finlay. The vote was tied, 16 each, whereupon Garden claimed a casting vote, in addition to his original vote, to elect himself. It was later claimed that Finlay had been confident of victory, but one of the councillors thought to be in his favour had turned against him on the day. The election proceedings ‘excited considerable interest’ in Glasgow. Protests were lodged against Garden’s selection, and when the oaths were administered Robertson claimed the right to be sworn as a delegate, which was allowed. Thanks to Glasgow’s casting vote Campbell was declared elected, although Robertson insisted that Finlay was the winner. Campbell briefly gave thanks and Finlay, in a lengthy address, promised to petition against the result. He rejected criticism that he had gained an unfair start in the contest by delaying the announcement of his candidature, explaining that he had been unable to act until Ewing had agreed to abandon his pretensions, and he claimed to have received support from 49 of the 84 burgesses. He said he was anxious to re-enter the Commons, which was ‘deplorably in want of commercial men’, declared his adherence to strictly ‘independent’ principles, expressing admiration for the duke of Wellington but hoping he would ‘dispose of his present companions’, aligned himself with Joseph Hume* on the issue of retrenchment and argued that the parliamentary franchise ‘ought to be enlarged ... in a slow and gradual manner, to keep pace with public opinion’. He admitted he had been wrong to support the corn law in 1815 and supported its revision, and, while favouring the abolition of slavery, he denied any hostility to the West India interest and accepted that due regard must be shown for property rights. He suspected that ‘the East India directors had not been idle in the transactions which were passing here’, and, looking pointedly at Garden, observed that ‘they had got powerful allies in the camp’. At the subsequent dinner given in Finlay’s honour, Ewing maintained that ‘we have almost the whole population ... on our side’ and was confident that the ‘time is not far distant when the principal commercial towns of the empire will be represented in Parliament’; Glasgow would ‘of course return a Member for itself’. Provost Dixon’s son Joseph stated that Dumbarton had supported Finlay ‘solely on condition’ that he would obtain ‘a fair and candid hearing’ for the town’s case against Glasgow, whereas Campbell had behaved ‘unfairly’ towards them by assisting the Clyde navigation bill.
A public meeting was summoned by requisition at Glasgow town hall, 9 Sept. 1830, to hear Grahame and Robert Thomson of Camphill move resolutions praising the ‘moderation and wisdom’ displayed by the French people in ‘establishing a free government’, which was ‘an example and beacon’ to others. Finlay ‘concurred in every sentiment’ expressed, adding that the ‘late glorious events’ were ‘highly conducive to the interests and welfare of mankind’.
At a ‘thinly attended’ meeting of the Glasgow Anti-Slavery Society chaired by Anthony Wigham, 11 Nov. 1830, it was agreed to petition for ‘speedy and total abolition’. The organizing committee included Grahame, Thomson and Davidson, and they forwarded their petition to the Commons, 15 Dec. 1830; others to either the Commons or Lords followed from the synod, various chapels and Dumbarton’s inhabitants in 1831.
The Grey ministry’s reform bill proposed to give Glasgow two Members of its own, while adding the large manufacturing town of Kilmarnock to the remaining burghs, which would continue to return one Member. In response to a requisition signed by 193 people, a public meeting was convened in the court hall, 12 Mar. 1831, to petition in favour of the bill. Grahame, who moved the main resolution, argued that the career of William Pitt† proved that without reform ‘no honest man could be prime minister’ without ‘deviating from his principles’. It was inconceivable that a reformed Parliament would ‘allow millions to be thrown away upon Canada, the Cape of Good Hope and other useless appendages’, or ‘multiply idle sinecurists under the title of ambassadors, for the support of despotism throughout Europe’, or exclude Britons from the trade with China ‘for the benefit of a set of monopolists’. He was seconded by Mylne, who thought that the bill reformed abuses ‘in the most efficient and peaceful manner’ and that ‘in the present circumstances it seems better than a more extended system, or than accompanied by ballot’. Sandford, Oswald, Colin Dunlop and Davidson were among the other speakers. The resulting petition, declaring that the bill was ‘calculated to restore that part of the constitution’ which had been ‘well nigh destroyed’ by ‘an oligarchical faction’, was signed by 24,120 individuals ‘in ... five days’ and forwarded to Parliament later that month with similar ones from the town council (‘unanimously adopted’), Merchants’ House, Trades’ House, various trades, the Reform association and Dumbarton, Renfrew and Rutherglen’s inhabitants.
Finlay, Joseph Dixon and Campbell all signified their intention of offering at the ensuing general election, but the latter, who had isolated himself by opposing the reform bill, quietly withdrew. Glasgow town council ‘unanimously elected’ Dalglish as its delegate to support Finlay, but Dixon was sure of Dumbarton, the returning burgh. The events at Rutherglen became so notorious that they were commemorated in verse. It appears that during their canvasses Dixon found favour, through his support for the ‘whole bill’, whereas Finlay ‘hum’d an he’d ha’d, an he’d shown nae decision, An’ said that the Bill wasna richt as it stood’. More importantly, perhaps:
Of course for young Joseph the weemen were workin’;
He’d fairly wan them wi’ his fine takin’ way.
An’ then ‘twas weel Kent, too, that a’ wha wrocht for him,
The chiel was baith able an’ willing to pay.
Consequently, Finlay secured only four of the burgesses’ votes, while the other 14 were promised to Dixon. The 14 burgesses were taken by steamer from Glasgow to Dumbarton, and thence by small boats to Luss, all the while being lavishly treated. Then, with ‘their wallets sae reamin’ wi’ a’ kin’s o’ dainties’, they were mounted on highland ponies and taken to the top of Ben Lomond, where they ‘subscribit a document read them’, before being taken to Govanhill for more hospitality. Returning to Rutherglen for the council meeting, they demanded a pledge from the delegate, provost John Gray, to vote for Dixon. The election at Dumbarton caused more ‘excitation ... than ... was ever witnessed within the ... returning burgh’, as Dixon’s friends made ‘great preparations ... to give as much zest as possible to the proceedings’. Rutherglen’s fortunate burgesses again arrived by steamer and joined the ‘reforming operatives’ and a ‘corps of colliers’, all wearing blue colours, for entertainments in an enclosure owned by Dixon’s father. At the county hall, Finlay’s attorney lodged a protest against the ‘illegal and corrupt practices’ used by Dixon’s party. The Dumbarton, Renfrew and Rutherglen delegates then voted for Dixon, who was declared elected. In returning thanks, he reiterated his support for the reform bill, while indicating that the Scottish measure required modification, and admitted that Finlay could probably ‘do ... more justice than himself’ to issues such as free trade. Finlay, denying any ill feeling, noted that provost Gray had been obliged to vote for Dixon ‘contrary to his own opinion’. Dixon was drawn through the streets in a carriage and ‘about 700 people’ were given dinner in the park, consuming ‘1,000 lbs of ham and beef, 1,000 fourpenny pies and an unlimited supply of porter, ale and spirits’. Dining with ‘about 130’ of his friends, Dixon praised the Rutherglen burgesses (‘almost all men labouring for their bread’) for having resisted ‘large pecuniary rewards’ offered by ‘injudicious friends’ of Finlay, and toasted Provost King, the Renfrew delegate, ‘although they differed in a slight degree as to the measure of reform’.
At a meeting of the reform association chaired by Henry Dunlop, 2 Sept. 1831, a petition to the Commons was ‘unanimously adopted’ expressing concern at the ‘slow advance’ of the reintroduced reform bill, pointing to the ‘most injurious effect upon the mercantile interests of this community’, which would ‘continue to languish’ until the issue was settled, warning of the ‘dangerous consequences to the tranquillity, and perhaps to the very existence of the present structure of society’ if the bill failed, and urging its passage ‘without mutilation or curtailment’. The petition was forwarded to Dixon, but apparently not presented. On 8 Sept. the coronation was marked by another procession of the Glasgow trades, involving some 12,000 people carrying banners in favour of the king, reform, economy, peace and ‘no boroughmongers’, which the Scottish solicitor-general, Henry Cockburn, described as ‘a magnificent and gratifying yet fearful spectacle’. Great care was taken by the organizers and the authorities to ensure that the event was orderly. ‘Considerably upwards of 100,000’ marchers and spectators gathered on the Green and there was a ‘very grand display of fireworks’ in the evening.
The reform association at Glasgow, including most of the liberal gentry, was formed for the support of the larger object of parliamentary reform and of the secondary measure of burgh reform. The main use, if not its main object, has been to facilitate intercourse between them and the leaders of the working class. They find these leaders quite disposed to be reasonable so long as they have confidence in the ministers. That confidence enabled them to weather the storm when the bill was rejected ... He stated that many of the most reasonable Tories ... are quite certain of the necessity of reform and only want for their own credit that it may be carried by those who have always been friendly to it ... [He also] anticipates a great accession to the radical party and in the word a violent change. This last opinion he tells me is held strongly by Sir John Maxwell, assuredly the most popular of the gentry in the West of Scotland. Sir John says that his influence, most considerable, would expire with the rejection of the reform bill, and that ... he must give place, in that event, to the violent leaders.
Lansdowne mss, Abercromby to Lansdowne [May 1832].
On 17 May ‘another ... immense meeting’ took place on the Green, attended by ‘not ... fewer than 120,000’ people, as many factories and workshops closed and ‘great bodies of men poured into Glasgow’ from surrounding towns and villages; a ‘strong body of 7,000 Irishmen came to the ground together and sent up a delegate to the hustings’. The Glasgow Herald testified to the ‘correct and excellent deportment of the whole assembly’. Flags, ‘generally black’, bore inscriptions such as ‘liberty or death’, ‘better to die in a good cause than live in slavery’, and ‘no petticoat government’; one depicted a woman holding a pair of breeches, with the motto ‘sic a wife as Willie had’. Although news had arrived of Grey’s reinstatement, Sandford urged the need to ‘show a stern and unbending front’, and Oswald trusted they would disappoint their enemies by demonstrating their attachment to ‘the laws, good order and the rights of property’. Douglas, Colin and Henry Dunlop, Atkinson and Tait were among the other speakers, another petition to the Commons urging them to withhold supplies was agreed and a ‘standing committee’ was formed ‘to meet daily if required’. At the end, a ‘female figure was ... torn to pieces and a fine straw crown ... committed to the flames’, and the meeting dispersed while the band played ‘Scots wha hae wi’ Wallace bled’. The petition was presented to the Commons, 4 June.
In April 1832 Glasgow’s planters and merchants organized a public petition calling for ‘prompt and substantial relief’ to save the West Indian colonies from ‘impending destruction’, observing that they were of ‘incalculable advantage to the mercantile interests of Scotland’ and to ‘the promotion of its industry’. The petition was presented to Parliament, with similar ones from the Trades’ House, chamber of commerce and General Shipping United Association, 9, 17 Apr., 24 May, 4 June.
At the general election of 1832, when Glasgow’s registered electorate had dramatically increased to 6,994, Ewing was returned at the head of the poll as an independent Conservative, along with Oswald, who was endorsed by the Whig ‘clique’, the political union and the trades; Dixon came bottom of a poll of six. Ewing was defeated in 1835 by Colin Dunlop but Oswald sat, with a brief interruption, until his retirement in 1847. Glasgow remained a Liberal stronghold until 1885.
Renfrew (1820); Rutherglen (1826), Glasgow (1830), Lanarkshire; Dumbarton (1831).