Wilton, ‘pleasantly situated in the widest part of the vale of the Wiley’, was only nominally the county town of Wiltshire, having become ‘a small, decayed place’.
I think myself entitled to expect in return for all I have done for you and for what I am about to do for you, that you will befriend me as far as you can in keeping up that influence which I more or less possess in and about Wilton ... the more so as I feel myself daily more incapable of that attention and activity which have hitherto secured to me the goodwill of many if not most of my neighbours of all classes and descriptions.
Montgomery’s willing compliance (he was, for instance, listed as present at all the subsequent elections during this period) is indicative of the means Pembroke employed to manage his interest.
Since most of the corporators were non-resident and rarely attended its meetings, the daily administration was left in the hands of a number of trusted local men, such as the carpet manufacturer Francis Seward, deputy recorder until 1824, his successor Henry Hetley junior of Bulbridge House, and the town clerk, John Swayne, an attorney. Of the 40 members of the corporation in 1820, four were peers and another four had not been sworn in, so that about 30 could legitimately have voted.
that both the candidates will go to Wilton some days previous to the election that they may previously call upon their constituents, whose goodwill to me entitle them to attention from my friends most concerned, as well as from me.
Hants RO, Malmesbury mss 9M73/G2538, Pembroke to FitzHarris, 5 Feb., 2 Mar.; G2459, Malmesbury to same, 8 Feb. 1820.
The elections also had a colourful side: on 10 Mar. 1820 Henry Ford, Pembroke’s agent, recorded that he had been ‘in the market place with Mr. [John] Seagrim [Pembroke’s steward] to distribute the beer to the poor in consequence of Mr. Sheldon’s and Lord FitzHarris’s election’.
FitzHarris expressed much disquiet at the Liverpool administration’s handling of the Queen Caroline affair and suggested to his patron that he should resign his seat. Pembroke demurred, saying that the issue did not necessitate his vacating and that ‘I am not aware of having any remplacant for you, but had I scores I would not avail myself of one of them’. Another reason he gave was his fear that
it would be said that because we had differed in opinion on this one subject (which by-the-by finally we may or we may not) I had requested you to secede that I might exert my influence in furthering the election of another to condemn the queen.
Malmesbury mss 415, FitzHarris to Pembroke, 21 July, 7 Aug.; 404, replies, 5, 12 Aug. 1820.
FitzHarris in any case succeeded his father as 2nd earl of Malmesbury in November 1820, and on 29 Dec. Pembroke advised him to apply urgently for his writ of summons to the Lords, in order ‘to preclude any awkward remarks or proceedings with respect to your quondam constituents’.
Expecting Sheldon’s demise, Pembroke, apparently not for the first time, attempted to cajole Normanton into accepting the seat, 19 Oct. 1822:
You already know that all that is expected of you is a support of the crown, that no slavish nor constant attendance is required, that the expense of the election does not exceed £100, that the annual permanent and chance disbursements to the poor, etc., etc., do not ever exceed £30. I do not see why it should put you in the least out of your way, and at any rate you may relinquish the seat whenever you please.
He declined, 24 Nov., having only ‘ambition enough to wish for a seat in your honourable House’, but he never sat in either chamber.
The sitting Members were returned unopposed at the general election of 1826, when eight corporators signed the entry in the minute book.
At the general election of 1830, when ten corporators were present, Penruddocke, an anti-reformer, was again returned, but Baker made way for the writer and diplomat Henry Bulwer, who had unsuccessfully contested Hertford in 1826. Unusually, Bulwer was not a member of the corporation, nor, being absent, was he added to it prior to his election.
when the ministers brought forward their measure of reform, he informed the gentleman through whose influence he was returned [for Wilton], that he should support the measure. Before he received the decision, the second reading came on [22 Mar. 1831], and he was consequently unable to vote. He was afterwards informed that, if he supported the bill, he must vacate his seat.
Coventry Herald and Observer, 29 Apr. 1831; Add. 36466, f. 410; M. Brock, Great Reform Act, 176-8.
Penruddocke was therefore joined by the aged anti-reformer Dawkins, who had been out of the House since 1826. Twelve corporators added their names to the election entry in the minute book, including Wyndham, Alexander Powell, Member for Downton in the 1826 Parliament, and Lord FitzHarris, the eldest son of the 2nd earl of Malmesbury. The corporator Edward Hinxman of Little Durnford House, ‘a staunch anti-reformer’, was present at the election, but does not appear to have voted.
The retention of Wilton in schedule B of the reintroduced reform bill was agreed in the House without debate or division, 30 July 1831. A numerously signed petition in the measure’s favour was presented to the Lords by the Lord Radnor, 3 Oct.
By 1832 the corporation contained eight peers: Pembroke, Carnarvon, Malmesbury, Normanton, the 1st Baron Heytesbury (as A’Court had become), the 2nd Baron Bridport, the 6th earl of Shaftesbury and the 3rd earl of Clanwilliam, Pembroke’s brother-in-law. Other relations among the corporators were, for example, Carnarvon’s heir Lord Porchester*, Shaftesbury’s eldest son Lord Ashley* and Pembroke’s kinsman Robert Henry Clive*. Not surprisingly, given his domination of the corporation and his extensive ownership of property in the enlarged constituency, Pembroke retained a decisive influence, and he continued to return Conservatives for its one remaining seat.
in the corporation
Estimated voters: about 30
Population: 2058 (1821); 1997 (1831)
