Wemyss gained a reputation in this period as a formidable electioneer whose speeches and addresses were ‘those of a jolly mariner, rough, homespun, full of a sort of ready raillery, blunt, off hand and ready witted, such as were sure to draw cheers from a crowd’.
He divided against Catholic relief, 28 Feb. 1821, 30 Apr. 1822, 21 Apr. 1825, and the Irish franchise bill, 26 Apr. 1825, and against parliamentary reform, including changes in the Scottish representation, 9, 10 May 1821, 20 Feb., 2 June 1823, 13 Apr. 1826. Assertions in radical publications that he ‘always’ voted with ministers were, however, inaccurate.
Wemyss presented Fifeshire petitions for and against corn law revision, 26 Feb., and divided against the Liverpool ministry’s corn bill, 2 Apr. 1827. He voted against Catholic relief, 6 Mar., and for the grant to the duke of Clarence, 16 Mar., and the spring guns bill, 23 Mar. 1827.
I came to the resolution of supporting General Balfour from no political motive, but from being well advised that he was the only man likely to secure unanimity amongst all parties. As Member for the county it is rather against my feelings to interfere in this matter beyond a vote, particularly as I have such a respect for General Durham and personally I care not who is convener, but as long as I am Member, it is my bounden duty to keep the county and the commissioners of supply in good humour, and heal, if possible, the recent wounds that have been so industriously inflicted on our peace.
Oswald of Dunnikier mss VIA/2, Wemyss to Oswald, 26 Aug. and passim, 1828.
The patronage secretary Planta predicted that he would vote ‘with government’ for Catholic emancipation in 1829, but he divided against the measure, 6, 18, 30 Mar., and presented and endorsed hostile petitions from Fifeshire and Inverary, 11 Feb., 26 Mar., and defended the decision of the Associate Synod of Kirkcaldy to petition similarly in the name of their president Thomas Grey, 30 Mar. He did not vote on distress in 1830, but he referred to it when presenting petitions against the proposed additional duty on corn spirits from Fifeshire and elsewhere 3, 17 May. He also brought up petitions that day against taxing Scottish probate inventories and against the East India Company’s trading monopoly. He cast a rare vote with the revived Whig opposition for abolishing the Irish lord lieutenancy, 11 May, and voted to amend the sale of beer bill’s provisions for on-consumption, 21 June. He secured an uncontested return for Fifeshire at the 1830 general election. His notices highlighted local issues, and when pressed on the hustings to explain his parliamentary conduct, he declared that ‘since the break-up of Lord Liverpool’s administration, he had voted for no particular party’ and ‘had he ... adhered to every successive administration ... his conduct must have been like a fool’s coat - of many colours’. He insisted that his vote on the Irish lord lieutenancy was, like the office itself, of no consequence, as ‘there might as well be a lord lieutenant of Edinburgh’, defended his stance on the beer bill and refused, when challenged, to make pledges on reform.
Ministers counted Wemyss among their ‘friends’, but he was absent from the division on the civil list when they were brought down, 15 Nov. 1830. He presented a petition for parliamentary reform from Cupar, 19 Mar., and divided for the Grey ministry’s English reform bill at its second reading, 22 Mar. 1831.
I am one of those who think that real property should be entitled to a proper share in the representation, even if it went only as far as £20; but when the franchise is attempted to be placed in the hands of the manufacturing and agricultural classes of Scotland, I fear that the interests of the people will be continually at war with each other and think that the result of such a measure would be to produce a continual political warfare ... We should have one party petitioning for a corn bill and another ... for no corn bill and so on ... With regard to the alteration of the boroughs, that I admit is good in principle, but requires some alteration in the details. It is a great anomaly to disfranchise one borough, and without a good, or indeed any reasons being assigned, to allow another to remain in its existing state ... I know there is a feeling in favour of reform, but it is a silent feeling as yet: for the petitions I have hitherto received came from those who are under the influence of others, and do not embrace the intelligence and respectability of all the counties ... I have reason to believe that many of my constituents in the county of Fife are alarmed at the proposed alteration in the franchise.
He issued notices countering reports that he would make way for Lindsay, 17 Apr., and voted against Gascoyne’s wrecking amendment to the reform bill, 19 Apr.
it had been well known, at the treasury, during the duke of Wellington’s administration, that he was friendly to reform. The only reason why he had never before voted for that measure was that he thought it improper to agitate a question involving so many interests till it should be brought forward by the government and the country and not by an individual.
He also signalled his intention of standing again, when the county should ‘be inclined to support a candidate who had no fortune to spend on canvassing, and no East India interest to offer’.
Now regarded as a ‘semi-liberal’,
