Lanarkshire

Lanarkshire had developed rapidly since the mid-eighteenth century to become the most populous and economically important county in Scotland. The northern part was rich in mineral deposits, and numerous collieries and iron works were concentrated around Airdrie, Coatbridge, Hamilton, Motherwell and Wishaw. Textile manufacturing, though increasingly centred on Glasgow and its immediate vicinity, was also ‘carried on to a considerable extent’ in towns and villages such as Airdrie, Lanark, New Lanark and Strathaven. Along the banks of the Clyde the land was fertile, and enclosures and drainage schemes since 1750 had led to improved cultivation of cereal crops; fruit orchards were also located there. In the largely ‘barren’ moorland of the south, there was some sheep and dairy farming.Ordnance Gazetter of Scotland (1895), iv. 456-65. Glasgow, Rutherglen and Lanark were the royal burghs. The influence of the 9th and 10th dukes of Hamilton ensured that ‘a Whig aristocracy prevails’ in Lanarkshire. Alexander, the 10th duke, who succeeded in 1819, was the lord lieutenant and his brother, Lord Archibald Hamilton, had been returned since 1802. Some of the voters on the Hamilton interest were life-renters. Tory opposition came from the 1st Baron Douglas, who had promoted the candidatures of his son Charles in 1806 and 1807, and of Sir Alexander Cochrane† of Lamacha, Peeblesshire, in 1818. It was observed of Lanarkshire in 1821 that ‘from the wealth and intelligence of Glasgow, and the number of the electors, public opinion has something like an influence attached to it’. HP Commons, 1790-1820, ii. 555-7; Glasgow Herald, 12 Jan. 1821; Glasgow City Archives, Maxwell mss T-PM 117/1/184; Add. 38750, f. 280.

In 1820 Cochrane announced his intention of standing again but Lord Melville, the Liverpool ministry’s Scottish manager, did ‘not suppose ... he has much chance of success’. He withdrew a week before the poll and no contest was expected. There was nevertheless a ‘very respectable attendance of freeholders’ at Lanark to hear Robert Lockhart of Castlehill and James Hope Vere* of Craigiehall nominate Hamilton, who hoped the absence of opposition meant that ‘sentiments of hostility formerly shown to me have in some degree subsided’. He regretted the prevailing economic distress, but drew confidence from the ‘superior nature of education in Scotland’, the ‘habitual reverence’ for the law, the ‘attention’ shown by the higher classes to the needs of the lower and the ‘patience’ of the ‘labouring class’, that social harmony would be preserved. On matters of general and local policy he asked his constituents to ‘enlighten my judgement by expressions of their feelings’. NAS GD51/5/749/1/204; Glasgow Herald, 11, 14 Feb., 20, 31 Mar. 1820. At a ‘most numerously’ attended county meeting in Hamilton summoned by requisition, 11 Jan. 1821, Sir Charles Lockhart of Carnwath moved a loyal address to the king which expressed ‘unqualified admiration of the constitution’, condemned the ‘efforts of the designing and disaffected to instil sedition and immorality into the minds of the people’, deplored the ‘evil feelings’ engendered by ‘the corrupt part’ of the press and hoped ‘a revival of trade would dispel the gloom which hung over the country’. Henry Monteith of Carstairs, Member for Linlithgow Burghs, who seconded, said that the address was ‘calculated ... to produce unanimity’. However, Hope Vere complained that the real purpose was to orchestrate support for the ‘present system’ and he moved an amendment, calling for ‘retrenchment, economy and conciliation’, which was seconded by Hugh Mossman of Auchtyfardal and carried by 94 votes to 90, amidst ‘vehement and long continued cheers’. The Tories had apparently ‘never contemplated the possibility of ... defeat’, which they attributed to the ‘very moderate’ wording of the amendment. Glasgow Herald, 8, 12, 15 Jan. 1821. On 9 Apr. 1821 a meeting was summoned by requisition to consider Robert Owen of New Lanark’s plan to create a model community, which if adopted generally he believed would eliminate poverty and offered the ‘only means by which the public could reap the benefits of the mechanical powers’. Sir James Stewart Denham of Coltness moved to petition Parliament and was seconded by John Maxwell, Member for Renfrewshire, who was sceptical of some of the details but thought it ‘desirable’ that Owen should ‘obtain a piece of ground that he might have an opportunity of trying his plan’. He was convinced that ‘the wages of the workmen might be made more productive and regulation ... be made to improve morality’, and he expressed ‘concern at the number of juvenile delinquents’. The 8th Baron Belhaven, while claiming to be ‘a friend to reform’, observed that ‘this was reform with a vengeance, it went to change the whole system of society’, and he moved for an adjournment to allow more time for consideration; he was supported by one Brown, who feared for the safety of ‘our civil and religious establishments’. The original motion was carried by 23 votes to seven and petitions were sent to both Houses, 30 May, 4 June 1821, requesting that the plan be referred to a committee; it was not. Ibid. 13 Apr. 1821; CJ, lxxvi. 411; LJ, liv. 449. A ‘thinly attended’ meeting on agricultural distress, 25 Oct. 1822, ‘unanimously agreed’ to Sir Henry Stewart of Allanton’s resolutions, which attributed the problem to falling prices and called for the ‘aggregate opinion of the whole landed interest in Scotland’ to be ascertained. To this end, a committee was appointed to represent Lanarkshire at a meeting of 13 counties in Edinburgh in December, when a report recommending tax reductions and currency reform was adopted; nothing further came of this. Glasgow Herald, 14, 25 Oct., 30 Dec. 1822. On 4 Mar. 1826 a meeting of 36 people, summoned by requisition, ‘unanimously approved’ petitions moved by Walter Campbell* of Shawfield and Kirkman Finlay* of Castle Toward expressing confidence in the Scottish banking system and warning of the ‘most disastrous’ consequences for ‘all classes’ of withdrawing small notes. A letter was read from Lord Archibald, who acknowledged that ‘the repugnance ... to the measure’ was ‘too strong and too general in Scotland to admit of any doubt’, and stated that ‘in this case’ he was prepared to ‘sacrifice my own opinion’ and ‘surrender into the hands of the county itself that trust which I hold as their representative’; his vote would accordingly be ‘regulated by any suggestions or instructions [the] meeting may think proper to give me’. The petitions were forwarded to Parliament, 14 Mar. 1826. Ibid. 27 Feb., 6 Mar. 1826; CJ, lxxxi. 165; LJ, lviii. 107. At the general election that summer Lord Archibald offered again, and observed with ‘some pride and self-satisfaction’ the recent progress made by those ‘liberal opinions and independent principles’ which he had consistently espoused. He was absent from the poll, owing to illness, but was nominated by Admiral Charles Elphinstone Fleeming† of Cumbernauld House, Stirlingshire, and Sir Henry Stewart, and ‘unanimously chosen’. A letter was read in which he advised that the corn law question was ‘the gordion knot of the present time’, but insisted that the interests of the agricultural and manufacturing classes were ‘not irreconcilable’ and welcomed ‘any suggestions’ from his constituents. At the celebration dinner, Fleeming toasted the ‘cause of civil and religious liberty all over the world’ and expressed satisfaction that the ‘senseless yell of no-Popery’ had ‘met with the fate it merited’. Glasgow Herald, 9, 12, 23, 26 June 1826.

A county meeting was summoned by requisition, 23 Sept. 1826, to represent to ministers ‘the distress existing generally throughout the county’. There was a ‘very good turn out of the country gentlemen’, the duke of Hamilton presided and the report from a committee appointed at an earlier meeting (29 May) to inquire into the problem was received. It stated that there were 30,000 handloom weavers in the county, that ‘a good worker could not earn more than 1s. a day’, insufficient to feed a family, and that local resources for relief (£942 had been raised through voluntary subscriptions) were almost exhausted. The spread of steam-powered machinery was identified as the main cause of unemployment, but the influx of Irish labour had exacerbated the situation and legislation was required to regulate or prevent the parish settlement of non-native paupers. Government intervention was also needed to dissuade the weavers from emigrating. Monteith, who had ‘been engaged in trade for a very considerable period’, disputed the finding that new machinery was to blame and attributed the distress to overproduction, part of the natural economic cycle; he was confident that prosperity would eventually return. However, Maxwell, Belhaven and the duke defended the report, and they dwelt on the need to reduce the ‘crippling’ burden of taxation. The duke added that he no longer favoured emigration, as this would mean a ‘virtuous and moral people’ being replaced by a ‘comparatively degraded population’. He also rejected any diminution of agricultural protection, which would reduce the ability of landowners to maintain the poor and purchase their products. The report was approved, with Monteith ‘dissenting, but not pressing for a division’, and a series of resolutions were agreed and forwarded to the government by the duke. Ibid. 2 June, 15, 25 Sept., 2 Oct. 1826. Petitions requesting assistance with emigration were sent to the Commons by groups of cotton weavers and by emigration societies, 5 Dec. 1826, 10, 12 Apr., 8 May 1827. CJ, lxxxii. 90, 403, 435, 441. Seven individuals, including Stewart Denham, Hope Vere and Monteith, signed a requisition for a meeting, convened on 17 Mar., when a petition was organized in favour of the proposed revision of the corn law; it was presented to the Commons, 2 Apr. 1827. Glasgow Herald, 5, 19 Mar. 1827; CJ, lxxxii. 379. Following the death of Lord Archibald Hamilton that September Sir Michael Shaw Stewart of Ardgowan, who was in Italy, agreed to stand on ‘similar’ principles. Lord Goderich’s coalition ministry regarded him as a ‘zealous friend’ and initially promised him support. However, when Charles Douglas came forward and informed his friend Sir William Rae*, the Tory lord advocate, of his willingness to give general support to ministers, it was felt ‘most prudent for the government to be neutral’. Concern was expressed in metropolitan Whig circles at reports that Rae and his deputies were ‘taking the most active measures’ on behalf of Douglas, who was operating ‘in strict alliance with the [duke of] Montrose and Melville Junto’, and the government’s conduct was seen as ‘the test of its future policy in Scotland’. If the duke of Hamilton, whose family had ‘borne so long ... the brunt of the battle’, was ‘deserted’ by the government for an ‘Ultra Tory’, this would ‘shake public confidence’ and there would ‘soon be an end to all co-operation with the friends of liberal principles’. Moreover, the contest was ‘viewed ... as a grand trial of the strength of parties in Scotland’. Consequently, ministers confirmed that they ‘meant a real and bona fide neutrality’ by sending ‘the most direct and positive orders ... to the lord advocate and ... all the employees of government’ to ‘abstain from interfering in canvassing or voting’. Glasgow Herald, 3 Sept.; Lansdowne mss, Goderich to Lansdowne, 6, 13 Sept., Spring Rice to same, 11 Sept.; Add. 38750, ff. 280, 293; 51542, Graham to Lady Holland, 10, 12 Sept. 1827. Letters to the local Tory press dismissed Shaw Stewart as a ducal nominee who was ‘utterly unknown to the county’, ‘does not possess a rood of land within its limits’ and whose ‘local and family connections’ with the port of Greenock made him likely to favour it over the ‘commercial interests of Glasgow’. Lanark was ‘busy’ on polling day, with ‘every inn and public house ... filled’. Shaw Stewart’s party nominated Sir John Maxwell of Pollok (father of the Renfrewshire Member) for praeses, while the Douglas party proposed Archibald Campbell of Blythswood, Member for Glasgow Burghs; the ‘majority of seven’ for Maxwell was ‘of course ... decisive of the fate of the election’. Stewart Denham and Sir Charles Lockhart introduced Douglas and Mossman sponsored Shaw Stewart. Douglas, who promised to be a ‘free and unfettered representative’, regretted that Shaw Stewart was not present to scotch rumours that he was to be ‘returned ... in the meantime, but ... afterwards [would] make way for ... Admiral Fleeming’. John Shaw Stewart, representing his brother, disclaimed this and the notion that he was the nominee of a ‘powerful family’, maintaining that a requisition had been received ‘signed by a great proportion of the freeholders’. The increased majority of 12 for Shaw Stewart arose from ‘two ... Douglas voters leaving the church’ and ‘three new freeholders being added to the roll, all ... for Shaw Stewart’. While the victorious party dined at the town hall, ‘two hogsheads of porter’ were left in front of the church and consumed ‘in a few minutes’. The Whigs in London were ‘much pleased’ with the ‘very great’ majority and the demonstration of ‘treasury discipline’. Glasgow Herald, 8, 12, 15, 19, 26 Oct. 1827; Add. 51677, Russell to Holland, 20 Oct.; 51687, Lansdowne to same, 21 Oct. 1827.

At a conclave of leading Whigs in Glasgow, 5 Dec. 1828, it was resolved that ‘for the preservation of the independent interest of the West of Scotland’ it was ‘necessary that Lanarkshire should be contested to the utmost, whatever the result may be’. In the event of a dissolution taking place before April 1829, Shaw Stewart would stand again, but after that date it was ‘now thought to be preferable’ that he should contest Renfrewshire while Maxwell switched to Lanarkshire, where his family owned substantial property. Whoever contested Lanarkshire would not be expected to defray the expense. However, it was also agreed that ‘in case Admiral Fleeming ... or any other popular candidate in the independent interest ... who has a fair prospect of success’ should offer for Lanarkshire after April 1829, they would ‘have the support of the Renfrewshire gentlemen in the liberal interest and Sir Michael Shaw Stewart the support of the Lanarkshire gentlemen in that interest in Renfrewshire’; Maxwell would in these circumstances ‘retire from Parliament’. Maxwell mss T-PM 117/3/1. Lanarkshire was silent on the Catholic question in 1829, but the presbytery and inhabitants of Hamilton and the united congregation of Airdrie petitioned Parliament against emancipation, 20, 26 Mar. CJ, lxxxiv. 154, 173; LJ, lxi. 183, 210, 314. Shaw Stewart supported the Wellington ministry’s bill. Some operative weavers petitioned the Commons for wage regulation, 1 June 1829. CJ, lxxxiv. 355-6. Both parties were active later that year in attempting to create new freeholders, and at the Michaelmas head court it was ‘agreed to admit to the roll without dispute the whole of the claimants, amounting to 68’, with objections being lodged afterwards, eight in the name of Campbell of Blythswood on behalf of the Tories and 16 in the name of James Farie of Farne for the Whigs. Glasgow Herald, 22 Feb. 1830. The outcome of these proceedings is unknown, but by the time of the dissolution in the summer of 1830 there were reports in London that Hamilton had lost control of the county and that his party were ‘much puzzled for a candidate’, as Fleeming would ‘not undertake’. In the event, Sir John Maxwell came forward, while his son retired to make room for Shaw Stewart in Renfrewshire. Charles Douglas offered again, and it was clear that Lanarkshire would be the scene of ‘the great conflict’ in Scotland. Ibid. 2, 5 July 1830; Hopetoun mss 167, ff. 142, 148, 151, 153; NAS GD157/2976/2. The ‘most lively interest’ was shown in the contest ‘throughout the county’, and after canvassing both parties ‘frankly acknowledged that the majority on either side could not exceed a few votes’. On polling day the freeholders ‘poured’ into Lanark ‘from all quarters’, every inn was ‘crowded with strangers’ and the public gallery in the church was filled ‘to suffocation’. Douglas and Norman Lockhart nominated Campbell of Blythswood for praeses, and Sir John Maxwell and Farie proposed Fleeming; Campbell was chosen by 95 votes to 83. A ‘considerable number of claimants’ were then enrolled, with ‘exceedingly few’ objections made, although Maxwell’s son complained that there were ‘no less than nine stipendiaries of government present’ to vote for Douglas, which showed the ‘dreadful manner in which matters had been conducted on [that] side’. Douglas was introduced by Sir Charles Lockhart and Stewart Denham, while Sir John Maxwell was sponsored by Sir William Maxwell of Calderwood and Campbell of Shawfield. Finlay, a Glasgow merchant, said that he and others had ‘invited Sir John to come forward’ in the belief that ‘a Member quite unshackled by government’ was needed who would promote local commercial interests. He sought Douglas’s opinion on the East India Company’s trading monopoly in China, but the latter declined to answer and merely expressed confidence in the duke of Wellington’s ministry and a desire to ‘follow out the principles of the constitution’. Sir John declared himself ‘an enemy to monopolies of every description’, although he would ‘not pledge himself ... to any particular line of political conduct’. According to one who was present, the Tories were ‘astonished at their majority’ of 19, and the Whigs had ‘not expected such a defeat’. It was later reported that four of Sir John’s supporters had been refused admission to the roll and 14 on each side had paired off. The ‘demonstration of popular feeling was strong in favour of ... Douglas’, and bands ‘paraded in all the villages on the road ... to Glasgow, where the houses were ... illuminated’, with ‘bonfires flaming in every direction’. Glasgow Herald, 13, 16, 23 Aug. 1830; Hopetoun mss 167, f. 161.

Anti-slavery petitions were sent to Parliament by the United Congregations of Airdrie and Strathaven, 16, 21 Dec. 1830, 14 Apr. 1831. CJ, lxxxvi. 194, 487; LJ, lxiii. 177. A ‘numerous’ county meeting was summoned by requisition, 25 Feb. 1831, to consider the state of Scotland’s representation. Sir Henry Stewart and Archibald Speirs† of Elderslie carried resolutions which declared that the existing system was ‘shockingly defective and utterly repugnant to the principles of the British constitution’ and had ‘produced most injurious effects’, notably a failure to restrain government expenditure. Lanarkshire, with a population of over 300,000 and extensive trading and manufacturing interests, had only one Member and a share of two others, which was ‘greatly short of its due share of representation’. Reform was therefore needed to ‘greatly extend the ... franchise and generally improve the whole system’. Petitions embodying these views were sent to Parliament, with similar ones from Hamilton and Strathaven, 26, 28 Feb., and a committee was appointed to monitor the situation and correspond with other counties. Glasgow Herald, 14, 28 Feb. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 310, 324; LJ, lxiii. 263-4. The Grey ministry’s bill made no change to Lanarkshire’s representation, but Glasgow was given two Members of its own. Lord John Russell stated, 1 Mar., that of the 224 freeholders only 98 were ‘landed proprietors’ in the county. The committee appointed on 25 Feb. used the authority given it to summon another meeting, 18 Mar., when a petition to the Commons was agreed expressing ‘unqualified and entire approbation’ of the bill, which would ‘secure the domestic tranquillity of the people’; it was presented with ones from Hamilton and Strathaven, 19, 28 Mar. Glasgow Herald, 14, 21 Mar. 1831; CJ, lxxxvi. 406, 446. In mid-March the duke of Hamilton’s attorney reported that ‘all parties have been exerting their utmost strength and industry for many weeks past’ to enrol new voters in time for a dissolution. Lord Douglas’s agents had striven to ‘concert the greatest number of votes that could be made on the Douglas estate’, and they had tried to influence ‘some of the ... Hamilton vassals to prevent their accommodating us with the superiorities of their lands’, without success. With regard to the ‘votes that have been planted this season, with a view to the fruit they are to produce next year’, the Douglas camp placed ‘great hopes’ on securing the adherence of General Lockhart, ‘with all the troops he is raising on his estate’, thought to number ‘about 20 or 22 new votes’. In response, the duke’s commissioners had recently ‘completed 22 additional votes’ on his estate, Elliot Lockhart of Cambusnethan had ‘completed 12 ... on his’ and ‘other friends have also made several additional votes ... we are still going on adding to the number ... as fast as they can be made’. Inverary Castle mss (History of Parliament Aspinall transcripts), Stuart to duchess [of Hamilton?], 14 Mar. [1831]. However, these activities were rendered redundant by the dramatic course of events. Douglas voted against the reform bill and offered at the general election in May 1831. There was apparently ‘some deliberation’ in London about Fleeming coming forward, but it was felt that ‘Lord Douglas’s voters were much too steady to give any chance of changing so large a majority’, and he chose to contest Stirlingshire. The younger Maxwell agreed to stand at the ‘request of many ... who have devoted themselves to the cause of civil and religious liberty’. Douglas complained that he had ‘devilish hard work of it ... with lots of radicals’, but after canvassing he was reportedly ‘a few votes ahead of his opponent’. Stair mss, Murray to Dalrymple, 24 Apr.; NAS GD157/2980/5; Glasgow Herald, 25, 29 Apr., 16 May 1831. The day before the election a ‘grand’ reform procession took place at Hamilton, involving ‘about 3,000 people’ from various towns, who displayed ‘upwards of 30 different banners, garlands [and] emblems’; ‘good order’ was maintained throughout. Maxwell was escorted into Lanark by ‘a splendid procession of the trades and other inhabitants’ of the town and its vicinity, while some 1,000 special constables, probably Douglas tenants, paraded the streets. There were ‘tumultuous and disorderly’ scenes among the ‘rabble’ in the gallery, as the oaths were being administered, and Douglas was cut ‘behind the ear’ by a broken glass. He proposed Campbell of Blythswood as praeses and Campbell of Shawfield nominated Fleeming; the choice of the former by 93 votes to 82 provoked ‘uproar’. After several unspecified alterations were made to the roll, Sir Charles Lockhart and Robert Lockhart introduced Douglas and Sir Henry Stewart and the advocate John Jardine sponsored Maxwell. The noise in the gallery was ‘perfectly indescribable’ as Douglas tried to speak, and stones were thrown despite Whig pleas for order. He criticized the details of the reform bill, but professed himself willing to ‘promote any plan for such alteration, on fair principles, of the elective franchise’ as would rectify the acknowledged ‘errors’ in the existing system. Maxwell, who supported the ‘whole bill’, argued that it would ‘strengthen ... materially’ the constitution and that without it measures for ‘the good of the people’, such as tax reductions, would never be carried. He declared that a victory for Douglas would prove that the freeholders were ‘not identified with the interests of the people’, and ended by praising the ‘independent freeholders’ for ‘nobly offering to sacrifice their political monopoly’. On being declared elected, Douglas and his entourage immediately left the church by a side door, but they were pelted with stones and the windows of their carriages smashed. The sheriff, William Robinson, read the Riot Act and summoned a squadron of Irish dragoon guards stationed nearby to clear the streets. Lord Lansdowne, on being informed of events by Maxwell, observed that ‘nothing can demonstrate more strongly the state of public feeling and the necessity of the [reform] measure’. Glasgow Herald, 13, 16 May 1831; NAS GD46/4/132/34; Maxwell mss T-PM 117/1/192.

In the House, 29 June 1831, Shaw Stewart criticized the sheriff’s handling of the proceedings, arguing that if proper use had been made of the available civil forces there would have been no need to resort to the military; Douglas, Rae and others sprang to the official’s defence. Petitions for the speedy passage of the reintroduced English reform bill were sent to the Lords from Hamilton and from the Airdrie Political Union, 4 Oct. LJ, lxiii. 1046-7. Following its rejection a county meeting was summoned by requisition, 7 Nov. 1831, when the duke of Hamilton presided. The convenor, Fleeming, in an unprecedented step, invited the heritors and tenants to attend, with the result that between 3,000 and 6,000 people were present. Shaw Stewart praised the ‘patience and moderation’ of the people and had ‘no hesitation in saying the bill would pass in ... a few weeks’. Maxwell, Speirs, Jardine and others spoke, and an address to the king was adopted requesting the use of ‘such constitutional measures’ as would secure the passage of an equally efficient measure. Glasgow Herald, 4, 11 Nov.; Greenock Advertiser, 11 Nov. 1831. The Airdrie Political Union petitioned the Commons to withhold supplies until the Lords carried the revised bill, 21 May 1832. CJ, lxxxvii. 326. In its final form the Scottish bill attached Airdrie, Hamilton and Lanark to the Falkirk district. After its enactment the registered county electorate was 2,705, making Lanarkshire a ‘large £10 constituency’. At the 1832 general election Douglas, who had suffered a stroke the previous autumn, retired and Maxwell, offering on the same principles as those of Lord Archibald Hamilton, was comfortably returned ahead of two Conservatives. He sat until his retirement in 1837, when the seat was captured by the Conservatives and held by them until 1859. Glasgow Herald, 30 July, 24, 28 Dec. 1832; Scottish Electoral Politics, 224, 237, 254.