Devizes

The borough was usually dominated by the families of leading clothiers, with their headquarters in London and estates in the neighbourhood, and was managed by its recorders in whose choice the clothiers had no doubt a decisive voice. John Garth was recorder of Devizes 1732-64 and Member 1740-1764, and was succeeded by his son Charles, recorder 1765-84 and Member 1765-80. William Willy, a leading clothier, sat for the borough 1747-1765, and was succeeded by his nephew James Sutton (son of a Devizes clothier) who represented Devizes 1765-80. Henry Addington, brother-in-law of James Sutton, was recorder 1784-1828 and Member 1784-1805. Henry Jones, M.P. 1780-4, was another London clothier; and Joshua Smith, M.P. 1788-1818 a merchant with an estate in the neighbourhood of Devizes.

In 1761, and again at the two by-elections of 1765, Sir Samuel Fludyer, probably the richest London clothier with Wiltshire connexions, tried to capture a seat at Devizes for his brother and partner, Sir Thomas Fludyer. Charles Garth wrote to the Duke of Newcastle, 9 Feb. 1762: ‘Notwithstanding Sir Samuel Fludyer’s opposition and interest with the clothiers, I canvassed for my father a majority of 26 voices to 8.’Add. 32934, ff. 243-4. The contest was not carried to a poll, which it was at the by-election caused by the death of John Garth. George Sloper, a Devizes baker who rose to be its mayor, wrote in his diary, 14 Jan. 1765: ‘Fludyer’s great mob on Monday the evening before the election broke the windows of the houses of most of Mr. Garth’s friends.’B. H. Cunnington, Annals of the Borough of Devizes, 1791-1835, ii. 252. And on 25 May Garth, writing to the South Carolina assembly, mentioned having received ‘a summons to Devizes, in consequence of the death of my colleague [William Willy], to support his nephew and my particular friend [James Sutton] against Sir Thomas Fludyer and two other candidates.’Transcripts of Charles Garth’s letter bks. in the possession of Mr. A. Godsal, at Haines Hill, Berks. But the contest does not seem to have been carried to a poll. Fludyer’s failure seems to show that great wealth and business connexions, even when backed by Government influence as Fludyer’s were in January 1765, were not decisive at Devizes. Still, a certain outlay of money was required: John Garth, in a letter to Newcastle of 30 June 1760, wrote about the expense of supporting his seat ‘against the intrigues of a faction’ having been heavy ‘to one circumstanced as I am’; and Charles Garth informed Newcastle in February 1762 that supporting their parliamentary interest at Devizes ‘has already been attended with no inconsiderable expense, at least £5,000, as my father has often assured me.’Add. 32907, f. 459; 32934, f. 243. The period of time this covers is not named.

After 1765 Devizes elections were apparently uncontested. In 1784 John Lubbock, the banker, intended to contest Devizes against Sir James Tylney Long and Henry Addington, but declined the poll ‘for the sake of peace’.Cunnington, ii. 263.