A Grandfather's Tale, Chapter 1, THE NURSERY
A GRANDFATHER'S TALE: Liverpool Slave Merchant WILLIAM BOLDEN 1730-1800
Chapter 1: THE NURSERY
On Friday, 15 October 1841, an important 'social' occasion was reported in The Sydney Herald:
MARRIED, On the 14th instant, at St. Phillip's Church, by the Reverend W. Cooper, Armyne Bolden, Esq., of Melbourne, son of John Bolden, Esq., of Hyning Hall, Lancashire, to Anna Maria, daughter of James Raymond, Esq., Postmaster-General. (1)
Armyne Bolden was one of four brothers, with (Reverend) John Satterthwaite, Lemuel, and Sandford George Bolden, who had come to Australia in the 1830s. Together they had embarked on an expensive pastoral venture in the Port Phillip District of the Colony of New South Wales (now the State of Victoria). From their home in Lancashire, England, they had brought out "a larger capital investment than was normal in those early days", as well as selected livestock from "a stud of shorthorn cattle of the highest type then known to breeders", and were determined on 'going in for squatting in a big way'. (2)
Bolden's Run in the Western District of Victoria occupied about 300,000 acres of fertile and well-watered land. It lay between the Hopkins and Merri Rivers and stretched northwards from the Southern Ocean (now the site of the City of Warrnambool) for more than 30 miles.
In 1841, with so much prime land fit to breed their prime beef herd, the future of the Bolden Brothers seemed assured. Yet, within two years of Armyne's proud announcement, their colonial prominence ant vast holdings had become a memory.
Two of the brothers were dead (Armyne and George) and another had sold his boks and piano and returned with his young family to England (John). The occupational licence for Bolden's Run was rescinded and the land subdivided into fourteen smaller stations and sold. The prized herd of well-bred cattle was drafted into smaller mobs, auctioned and dispersed. For all their impressive 'noise' of self-promotion and big spending in the years between 1838 and 1843, the Boldens disappeared from regional history.
The Bolden boys had clearly meant to impress. They had high self-regard and were quickly known for their indifference to the interests of others, their determination to get their own way. As a result, and despite the short time they were in the colony, the Bolden's were defendants in two high-profile Supreme Court trials in Melbourne. In R. Vs Bolden (1841) they faced charges of murdering two Aboriginals on 'their' land. In Strong v. Bolden (1843) they were accused of defrauding two neighbouring squatters in the sale of 200 cattle.
On more favourably reported occasions it was the extent of their capital, the scale of their enterprise, and their landed lineage, that was emphasised. As Armyne's marriage notice declared, the brothers were the sons of "John Bolden, Esq., of Hyning Hall, Lancashire". The implied status of English 'minor gentry' played a significant part in the promotion of their grandiose self-image.
Even in 1844, after the deaths of Armyne and George and with the great scheme of pastoral dynasty in ruins around him, Lemuel Bolden scorned the notion of smaller ambitions. When his older brother John suggested the two survivors retain "the purebred Shorthorns" on a "portion of the stations", his idea was abruptly dismissed. That, said Lemuel, "would only be squatting in a small way". (3)
The meteoric rise and fall of the Bolden Brothers is an intriguing fragment of local history. It prompts the question of where their wealth, so quickly lost, actually had its source. Money underpinned their social and economic 'position' in the colony, just as it inflated their belief in their own capacities to invest it profitably. Their identity as 'pastoral pioneers' depended on it. But as young men (at the start of their 'journey' in 1838, George was 19, Armyne was 20, and Lemuel was 22), this money was not theirs. Not in the sense that they had 'made' it. They had acquired it from somebody else.
A critical part of establishing historical identity is to 'follow the money'. Understanding character in the 'new world' is not just about discovering where people came from in the 'old'. It is also about 'who' they came from.Neither should this be a superficial inquiry into inherited title or rank. At the heart of 'who' is generational money and means. This is a fundamental indicator of attitudes and aspirations.
Rather than asking where the Bolden Brothers came from (short answer: Hyning Hall), the intelligent question to ask is where there money came from? Or, more precisely, from 'whom' did their money come? To answer this is to travel back in time nearly one hundred years -- before the Bolden brothers came to the Western District of Victoria, and before their father became "John Bolden, Esq., of Hyning Hall" -- to when there was just their great-uncle, William Bolden, son of a tanner, in the town of Lancaster.
"Bolden, William, merchant, 95, Duke Street. Counting-house, 6, Henry St." So reads the entry from the 1790 edition of Gore's Liverpool Directory. (4) This dates from when Bolden was already an established merchant in the port of Liverpool. Prior to his successful career in commerce, however, William's origins were humble.
William Bolden was born on a small tenant-holding at Ellel, a village four miles south of the county town of Lancaster. On 26 December 1730 he was baptised in St. Michael's Church at nearby Cockerham. (5)
Parish records for St. Michael's indicate his ancestral line going back for at least three generations. His great-grandfather Edward Bolden of Ellel is the first to be mentioned. Next are his grandparents Edward and Alice Bolden of Ellel. Grandfather Edward, "the son of Edward", was buried at Cockerham on 11 November 1726. Shortly after, on 6 March 1727, grandmother Alice, "relict of Edwd.", was buried with her husband.
The marriage of his parents William and Jennet Bolden, is recorded at St. Mary's, Lancaster, on 11 May 1725. At the end of their lives, William and Jennet returned to their Ellel roots, with Jennett being buried at St. Michael's, Cockerham, on 1 April 1774, and William joining her on 14 July 1774. This suggests that links with their rural past remained strong for the Bolden parents, despite earning their living and raising their children in Lancaster.
One other family event is noteworthy for this generation. In 1750 William's older but unmarried brother Edward died. The family's Ellel tenancy therefore came into William's possession. At this time William and Jennet were residents of the county town, where William was a 'freeman' and master tanner, and their inherited interest in the little farm was sold.
Later generations seem to have indulged themselves in some re-writing of family history, implying greater substance than their original circumstances truly warranted. The sixth edition of Burke's Landed Gentry, published in 1879, claimed that "This family was possessed of the estate of the Boldens, in Ellel, Co. Lancaster, for more than two centuries, until it was sold about the year 1750, by William Bolden Esq., who afterwards settled in Liverpool". (6) This entry is almost entirely a fabrication.
The reality was more 'subsistence' than substantial. The 'poor' nature of "the estate of the Boldens in Ellel" is supported by other sources referring to the occupations of the Bolden as 'tanners' or 'curriers'. These labels infer that the income derived from skinning dead animals and curing their hides for leather was at least as important as anything the smallholding could provide.
Another indication of agricultural 'leanness' is recorded in a Lancaster poll book, where William Bolden is described as both a "freeman of Lancaster" and a "husbandman" of the parish of Cockerham. (7) This essentially means that with his 'town hat' on he was licensed and qualified to practise his trade, but with his 'farm hat' on he was entitled to scrabble a bare living from a piece of rented land.
A 'husbandman' in rural eighteenth-century England was a 'working farmer', someone who rented their dwelling and a small acreage from the local landowner, and was reliant on his own and family labour to till the soil and harvest crop. The other class of smaller farmers were known as 'yeomen', usually freeholders of their land and employers of permanent and seasonal labour. The nomination of the elder William Bolden as a husbandman rather than a yeoman points to a 'peasant' enterprise, not an "estate".
His move from Ellel to Lancaster is also revealing . In 1717-18 he was registered as a "freeman" of that borough and described as a "currier" (a 'curer' or 'dresser' of leather). That is to say, he had served his time as an apprentice to a particular trade within the boundaries of that town. He was then entitled to practice his calling as his own business and without being subject to the fees and taxes levied on 'outsiders'. He was also allowed to vote for town councillors, own property, and employ labour, within Lancaster.
In making this step away from Ellel, William Bolden the elder was demonstrating a way out of rural poverty, a path of migration to an urban centre and an improved income. By deliberately specialising in a skilled occupation, he reduced his dependence on the random grace of a landlord (the bogus 'privilege' of an inherited lease), and the unreliable 'luck' of agricultural seasons. In more ways than one, he became a 'free man'.
Master and Apprentice
The south Lancashire Town of Liverpool offered a similar system of social and economic advancement to that of its northern neighbour Lancaster. In Liverpool there were three pathways to the coveted status of "freeman" or "burgess". The first was "by birth"; as the son of an existing freeman and born within the boundaries of the borough. The second was "by servitude"; on completion of a written instrument of apprenticeship that required serving seven years to an existing freeman within the borough (and currently resident in Liverpool themselves). The third was "by gift"; the 'gift of the Guild' or the Council, which really meant "by purchase", for money. (8)
These different routes to economic opportunity are illustrated by the experience of William Bolden junior, and by his soon-to-be business partner in the merchant firm of Sparling and Bolden, John Sparling. William Bolden (1730-1800) was admitted freeman in 1769. The Liverpool Town Books record that he claimed this status "by servitude". In effect, William Bolden was declaring that he had served an apprenticeship under a Liverpool merchant, and that he was also resident in the town. On the other hand, when John Sparling had registered his 'freedom' in the Port of Liverpool in 1764, it was "by purchase", a privilege for which he paid the sum of 50 Guineas (52 Pounds and 10 shillings). (9)
The different ways used by the two men to gain their 'citizenship' probably reflects their slightly different backgrounds. Sparling came from Bolton-le-Sands in Lancashire, the "son of a yeoman", and about the same time (1766) he also became a freeman of Lancaster by similar means. The family background of William Bolden, the son of a tanner and husbandman, meant that he started his commercial life without the same inherited advantages.
For the sake of clarity, it is important to state here that while William senior was a freeman of Lancaster, his son served his apprenticeship and became eligible for his freeman status in Liverpool. William junior therefore left his parent's home in the north and there is no evidence that they ever followed him south. The young man, probably in his late teens, was on his own, but for the extremely fortunate circumstance of him gaining a "written instrument of apprenticeship" with a merchant of the growing port of Liverpool (as opposed to a stagnant one like Lancaster).
His parents William and Jennet had at least eight children baptised at St. Michael's, Cockerham, and St. Mary's, Lancaster. When they sold the family 'inheritance' at Ellel around the middle of the century, the proceeds are unlikely to have amounted to very much at all. A few livestock, some implements, and a few pieces of furniture, may have improved their standard of living in Lancaster, but were probably insufficient to pass on a useful sum of 'capital' to equip their son.
How the Boldens were able to finance the purchase of an "Indenture" for William junior, in another borough and to a more lucrative and prestigious trade than their own, remains a mystery. As does the identity of his merchant 'Master' (who may in this case have also been young William's 'Benefactor'). What follows next in this 'biography' is therefore conjectural. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it at least provides a reasonable hypothesis.
It is possible that William Bolden's Master, the Liverpool merchant who taught him the "art, mastery, and business" of the slave trade, was one Samuel Shaw. This suggestion is largely based on the degree of trust that existed between the respective firms of Sparling and Bolden, and Samuel Shaw and Company. A close relationship between the two entities existed right from Sparling and Bolden's earliest days in the Virginia trade, and lasted through their involvement in the notorious 'Africa trade'. It is was if the older more established firm of Shaw and Co. was silently playing the role of mentor to the younger, less experienced partners, a benign commercial presence that was, in spirit, more cooperative than competitive.
According to Williamson's Liverpool Memorandum Book, published in 1753, Samuel Shaw was a member of the "Company of Merchants trading to Africa belonging to Liverpoole". In 1752 Samuel Shaw and Company owned two "Guineamen" or "Vessels trading from Liverpool to the Coast of Africa" -- the Elizabeth, Captain William Heys, Gambia...200 slaves", and the "William and Betty, Captain Thos. Barclay, Angola...400 slaves". He was also an insurer of ships and cargoes, with the listing "Mr Samuel Shawe's Insurance Office at his House in Dale-street". (11)
It is fair to say that in the early 1750s, around the time that William Bolden would have been doing his merchant apprenticeship, Samuel Shaw was already a recognised Liverpool 'name'. Shaw was a middle-order merchant, reputable among his peers, solvent in his business dealings. He was not in the top rank, but he had married into the Blundell family, who were. The scale of his own operation was by comparison modest, but competently run. Above all, it was profitable, with the principal now owning two ships and a substantial brick residence and office near the Liverpool Dock.
The concept of trust might appear anomalous in the context of men who trafficked slaves. Nevertheless, it was the foundation upon which merchants conducted everyday business and built their trading fortunes. Mercantilists did not always see each other as competitors or opponents. They in fact depended on mutual goodwill and honesty to fulfill the terms of their bargains, in transactions that were negotiated in one place but often to be executed thousands of miles away.
Merchants were required to provide reliability and consistency in their commercial behaviour or there would be no repeat business. This was a matter of practical expediency. Trade would cease without extensive networks of like-minded dealers who could be depended on to reciprocate. Most of a merchant's time could be spent in nurturing and developing these crucial relationships, personal linkages that needed to survive the distance of oceans and continents. In historical terms, evidence of 'repeat' orders meant more than 'the price is right'. It also signaled a relationship of trust.
In a business culture that, of necessity, favoured 'known' traders, there was considerable advantage in 'attaching' a new enterprise to an established firm. For example, it was common for British merchant houses to send out 'factors' (usually employees) or 'friends' (often family members) to represent their interests in colonial outposts. This provided the home company with trustworthy people to sell their consignments of manufactured goods, and to faithfully remit the proceeds. Such personal connections also benefited their offshore associates, who then had the opportunity to make commissions on the sales and to purchase return cargoes of plantation produce. The larger 'domestic' company gave an effective 'umbrella' of credit, insurance, and access to regular shipping, for the smaller colonial trade-stores. (12)
Aspects of this sort of symbiosis can be seen in the relationship that developed between the established Samuel Shaw and Company of Liverpool and the fledgling colonial partnership of Sparling and Bolden across the Atlantic in North America. The evidence of their shared ownership of merchant vessels during the late 1750s in Virginia suggests the likelihood of a pre-existing relationship during the early 1750s in Liverpool. In February 1759, William Bolden, merchant of Norfolk in Virginia, registered the 100 ton brigantine Hannah as owned by himself, Sparling, and Samuel Shaw, merchant of Liverpool. These three were again part owners of another Hannah (140 tons), this time registered by Shaw at Liverpool in February 1764. (13)
It is perhaps not too much of a leap to argue that the pre-existing relationship that so favoured Bolden when he was starting out in business in Virginia was initially a Master and Apprentice bond served out in Shaw's office in Dale-street.
While William Bolden may or may not have been indented to Samuel Shaw, there is no doubt that Liverpool was the location of his apprenticeship. And, in the middle of the eighteenth century, a young man without capital could do worse than move to the 'Pool on Mersey-side, "to be fitted for business and to make my fortune". (14)
Liverpool was a relatively new but rapidly expanding port. It was ideally situated as a 'gateway' between the industrialising Black Country of Lancashire and the Plantation Colonies of British North America. From before the beginning of the century Liverpool was 'owned and operated' by enterprising merchants -- "Forty and one honest and discreet men of the burgesses of the town aforesaid, who shall be called...the Common Council of the said town" -- who self-selected themselves year after year and were bent on furthering their own interests. (15) It was in every sense a merchant town, run by merchants for merchants.
In 1700 the port of "Liver Pool" ('lifrig pul' or 'clotted pool'), was little more than a bulbous shaped creek entering into "a turbulent river estuary with high tides, treacherous sand banks and shifting channels", a muddy fishing village of 5,500 inhabitants huddled on "a flat windswept shore". (16) However, it was noted that to the south of the Mersey's entrance into the Irish Sea, the silting up of the River Dee had strangled the maritime trade of the once busy and prosperous mediaeval city harbour of Chester. Chester's misfortune was recognised as the Mersey merchants' opportunity. Exploiting their natural advantage of open access to the ocean, the burgesses of Liverpool borrowed large sums of money and set about building an enclosed all-weather floating dock, the first commercial 'wet dock' in Britain.
In 1709 Parliament was prevailed upon to pass "An Act for making a convenient Dock or Bason, at Leverpoole, for the security of all ships trading to and from the said port of Leverpoole". This legislation appointed the "Mayor, Aldermen, Bailiffs, and Common Council" as "Trustees" empowered to fund and construct the ambitious project. By 1716 another Act reported that the 'pool' had been excavated and the new dock, walled in brick and stone, was now ready to receive ships for loading and unloading -- and all achieved for 16,000 Pounds. (17)
Liverpool's genesis as Britain's leading port in the trans-Atlantic trade was typical of a spirit of enterprise then beginning to energise the hinterlands of Lancashire, southern Yorkshire, and northern Cheshire. Cargoes of Cheshire salt and Lancashire cloth were shipped out to the American mainland. Cargoes of tobacco and 'naval stores' (tar, pitch, and turpentine, essential for waterproofing ships and rigging) were shipped in. The New Dock became the Old Dock, with the addition of the Salthouse wet and dry basins (Act 1738, completion 1753).
Eclipsing the North American trade was the Africa trade. Manufactured goods were sent to the Guinea Coast to purchase slaves. These slaves were shipped to the plantations of the West Indies to be sold as enforced labour. Plantation produce from slave labour, principally sugar, was then loaded for the home journey, to be refined and resold. By mid-century, Liverpool alone sent out more 'slavers' on this Triangular Trade than both of the ports of London and Bristol combined. But to fit out and "merchandize" a slaver was an expensive investment of 3,000 Pounds or more, which was well out of the reach of young men with little or no capital.
It was therefore the economic synergies of the Virginia trade that appealed foremost to William Bolden and John Sparling in the 1750s. There was a natural affinity between the export of Lancashire sailcloth and canvas, rope and twine, and importing the tar and turpentine that went into their production. In a business age where personal connections remained critical to commercial confidence, the development of a compact and complementary network of contacts in one or two related industries may have seemed more within their grasp.
There was one more significant advantage that Liverpool merchants enjoyed in the North American trade. British mercantilism was built on a scaffold of imperial subsidy and colonial monopoly. Rights to trade internationally were restricted to preference British interests, and there was a large British Navy to police the system. (All the European maritime powers, the French, the Dutch, the Spanish, and the Portuguese, sought to enforce their own monopolies but by the mid-1700s Britain was by far the most successful of these).
The statutory key to restraint of trade was contained in seventeenth-century legislation, know collectively as the Navigation Acts. Their high-water mark was The Staple Act of 1663, which declared itself "An Act for the Encouragement of [British!] Trade", but all of them shared a similar goal. In effect, the Navigation Acts insisted on colonial trade being conducted by English merchants in English ships. (18)
Successive 'Acts of Trade' in the eighteenth century were designed to expand this protectionist principle to specific industries deemed essential to Britain's wealth and defence. In 1750 "An Act for Encouraging the Importation of Naval Stores from America" authorised the payment of a bounty of 4 Pounds per ton on tar and pitch and 3 Pounds a ton on resin and turpentine. This effectively halved the shipping cost between the Colony of Virginia and the Port of Liverpool.(19)
In 1712 Parliament imposed a duty on imported sailcloth and granted a bounty for English exports. In 1736 this protection and promotion of the local industry was reinforced with a law requiring all English ships to carry a full set of English sails. The effect of these measures was to increase production in Lancashire of the coarse linen-canvas suitable for sailcloth, and increase the county's demand for naval stores. (20)
The implications for trans-Atlantic trade from these examples is plain enough. One Act increased the likelihood of a profitable (subsidised) cargo from North America to Liverpool. The other two enhanced the probability of loading a profitable from Liverpool to North America. Benefiting on both legs of the voyage would be those merchants who arranged such a happy coincidence of interests.
This was another good reason for Sparling and Bolden to consider the economic synergies between Liverpool, Lancashire, and Norfolk, Virginia, as the starting ground for their new partnership.
None of these economic opportunities would have amounted to much if there were not the types of people around Liverpool who could, and would, act on them. The character and motivation of Englishmen who made their living from trade had already begun to interest their contemporaries. Commentary from the beginning of the eighteenth century praised merchants as somewhat mysterious wonder-workers.
One propagandist for mercantilism was Daniel Defoe, author of the novels Robinson Crusoe and Moll Flanders, but also of pamphlets promoting such dubious schemes as the South Sea Company. In his "Review of the State of the English Nation" in 1706, Defoe envisioned "A True-Bred Merchant" who "sits in his Counting-House, and Converses with all Nations, and keeps up the most exquisite and extensive part of human Society in a Universal Correspondence". Another influential essayist and publisher of the period was Joseph Addison. He described a merchant class who "knit Mankind together in a mutual Intercourse of Good Offices, distribute the Gifts of Nature, find Work for the Poor, add Wealth to the Rich, and Magnificence to the Great". (21)
These remarks are uncomfortably flattering to the modern ear. The language of 'sitting' and 'knitting' also seems too passive, as if merchants were just a grander version of the nation's shopkeepers, laying out their wares on a table and waiting for their customers to come to them.
A later hack-writer, Robert Campbell of The London Tradesman, was probably more perceptive when he wrote of the "Sphere of the Merchant" in 1747. According to Campbell, this sphere "extends itself to all the known World and gives Life and Vigour to the whole Machine". A merchant, therefore, "ought to be a Man of extensive Genius", with an understanding not only of "Goods and Merchandise in general...but he must know Mankind and be acquainted with the different Manners and Customs of all the Trading Nations". Indeed, he must be "as well acquainted with the Manners and Customs of all the Nations he trades with as his own". (22)
Campbell paints an energetic picture in mid-century. He recognises the importance of up-to-date market intelligence, of 'local' knowledge, and he conveys a sense of the merchant activism that is required to gain it. It is not enough for "a Man of extensive Genius" to "sit in his Counting-House" at home. The merchant must go out into the international market place and become "acquainted" with that information for himself.
William Bolden was one of those energetic, activist traders. The Liverpool Plantation Registers indicate that he was resident in Norfolk, Virginia in 1759, from where he registered the Hannah, and still there in 1765, when he registered the Hope. It is not until his registration of the Fanny in 1767 that we find his address reverting to Liverpool.
Bolden was willing to leave Liverpool and spend many years in the Colony of Virginia, developing new relationships with colonists, planters, tar-burners, ships' captains, and small traders, before returning to set up his counting-house at Henry Street. He was prepared to begin by building his business 'on location', to steadily accumulate the reserves of capital (and reputation) that were necessary before entering Liverpool's most lucrative trade -- slaving.
(1) The Sydney Herald, Friday 15 October 1841, <trove.nla.gov.au>
(2) Tom Browne, 'The Sketcher: Heidelburg Revisited', The Australasian, Saturday 13 June 1908, p. 53
(3) 'Stock & Station By RVB, Shorthorn Cattle', The Australasian, Saturday 20 September 1930, p. 48
(4) Gore's Liverpool Directory, 1790, <specialcollections.le.ac.uk>
(5) 'Baptisms, Marriages, Burials', Lancashire Online Parish Shire Clerks, <www.lan_opc.org.uk>
(6) Sir Bernard Burke, 1879, A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain and Ireland, 6th edition, Volume 1, p. 15
(7) Maurice M Schofield, 1964, 'The Virginia Trade of the Firm of Sparling and Bolden of Liverpool, 1788-99', Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, Vol. 116, pp. 118, 120
(8) Richard Brook, 1853, Liverpool as it was During The Last Quarter Of The Eighteenth Century, Liverpool, J Mawdsley & Son, pp. 204-206
(9) MM Schofield 1964, pp. 120-121
(10) MM Schofield 1964, pp. 118, 121
(11) Robert Williamson, 1753, The Liverpool Memorandum Book: or Gentleman's, Merchant's, and Tradesman's Daily Pocket-Journal, For the Year M,DCC,LIII
(12) Mair, 1784, 'Description of Virginia Commerce; The Produce and Commerce of Tobacco Colonies', (Book-keeping Modernised), The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 14, (1905), p. 89
(13) MM Schofield 1964, p. 120
(14) Nicholas J Radburn, 2009, 'William Davenport, the Slave Trade, and Merchant Enterprise in Eighteenth-Century Liverpool', MA thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, 18
(15) R Brook 1853, pp. 204-206
(16) Katie D McDade, 2011, 'A Particular Spirit of Enterprise: Bristol and Liverpool Slave Trade Merchants as Entrepreneurs in the Eighteenth Century', PhD thesis, University of Nottingham, 60
(17) R Brook 1853, pp. 95-97
(18) Maurice M Schofield, 1986, 'Shoes and Ships and Sealing Wax: Eighteenth-Century Exports to the Colonies', Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, Vol. 135, p. 63
(19) BJ Nash, 2011, 'Economic History; Tar and Turpentine', Region Focus, Fourth Quarter, p. 47
(20) FJ Singleton, 1977, 'The Flax Merchants of Kirkham', Transactions of the Historic Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, Vol. 126, p. 74
(21) Andrew Lincoln, 2002, 'Scott and Empire', Studies in the Novel, Vol. 34, No. 1, p. 43
(22) KD McDade 2011, pp. 27-28
(23) MM Schofield 1964, pp. 120-121