Borough

Thomas Pitt of Boconnoc had a long-standing interest at Okehampton. Sir George Lyttelton was first returned there on his interest, but by 1747 had established himself sufficiently to withstand Pitt’s effort to turn him out. The Duke of Bedford, encouraged by Henry Pelham, also cultivated an interest in the borough. By 1754 Pitt, in hopeless financial straits, had pawned his interest to the Administration, while Bedford had gone into opposition; but a compromise was settled concerning Okehampton.

Honiton had a very wide franchise, and was one of the most venal boroughs in the kingdom. The electorate, which included most adult male inhabitants, was poor, unruly, and of low social standing: the poll book of 1763Photostat copy in Guildhall Lib. does not record a single esquire, and few professional men—most of the voters were labourers, artisans, or small shopkeepers. Candidates were sought out, and even advertised for,Porritt, Unreformed House of Commons, i. 357. and contests were frequent and expensive.

Exeter, a cathedral city and port, was the centre of the serge-making industry. The corporation or chamber had considerable influence in elections and put forward its own candidates. In the eighteenth century, when the chamber was strongly Anglican, its candidates were invariably chosen from landed families living near Exeter.

A good many of the Dartmouth electors were connected with the customs house and the castle, and Dartmouth was a Government borough managed by Arthur Holdsworth, of an old Dartmouth merchant family, and since 1753 governor of Dartmouth castle. After Poole, Dartmouth was the chief English centre for the Newfoundland fisheries and trade. The two Members at the dissolution in 1754, Walter Carey and his step-son John Jeffreys, were again Government candidates, and Newcastle’s election list notes against their names: ‘Settled. See Mr. Holdsworth’s letters.’Add. 32995, ff.

The borough was shared by the Drake and Hobart families. Under proper management the number of burgages was kept down, and the creation of faggot votes was prevented. By 1754 only extreme neglect could have lost the borough to the two families. Sir Francis Henry Drake of Buckland Abbey, within three or four miles of Bere Alston, managed it for both; and when he sold his share in it to Hugh, 1st Duke of Northumberland, the Earl of Buckinghamshire did likewise. Northumberland, dying 6 June 1786, left Bere Alston to his second son, Lord Algernon Percy.

Neighbouring landowners, among others John Harris of Pickwell, John Clevland of Tapley, and the Bassets of Heanton, had some influence in the borough, but money counted for most. In 1754 the candidates were John Harris, George Amyand, and John Fortescue, who had contested the borough in 1748 and was now supported by the Duke of Bedford.Fortescue to Rob. Butcher (Bedford’s agent), 23 Sept. 1753, Bedford mss. Amyand’s election was managed by John Clevland sen.

In 1754 Ashburton was controlled by John Harris of Hayne, through his marriage to the heiress of the Tuckfields, who had owned a moiety of the manor. When his wife died, a month before the general election, the property passed to his step-daughter, Lady Orford. To James Buller she wrote, 5 Apr. 1754:Buller mss.

Throughout this period the Cavendishes controlled one seat at Derby. Robinson wrote about the borough in his survey for the general election of 1780: ‘The Devonshire family certainly have this place if they were to exert themselves, but they have hitherto prudently given up one and probably may do so again.’ The 4th Duke of Devonshire had considerable influence in the choice of the second Member, but the 5th Duke was usually concerned with one seat only. Shortly before the by-election of 1772 Lord George Cavendish wrote to the Duke of Portland:8 Jan. 1772, Portland mss.

Traditionally one seat was as a rule conceded to the Castle interest of the Percys, which from them passed to the 7th Duke of Somerset, and from him to the Wyndhams. The other seat was usually filled by representatives of gentry families owning property in the borough or its neighbourhood. The local gentlemen, who held most of the burgages, were long jealous of purchases by a single magnate which would ‘close the borough’ and deprive them of ‘mercenary respect’ at elections.

Carlisle was traditionally the scene of contest between the Howards, Earls of Carlisle, the Musgraves, and the Lowthers; and there was also a strong independent element among the freemen, always prepared to encourage candidates.

In 1761 the Howard interest was declining and the Lowther interest was getting stronger; and Sir James Lowther, taking advantage of Lord Carlisle’s minority, made his first attempt to capture the borough.