Borough

Bossiney had no charter and the right of election had never been determined by Parliament. According to most authorities it was in the resident freemen, but in fact Bossiney behaved as a corporation borough. A titular mayor existed, associated with a number of so-called freemen, who exercised the franchise to the exclusion of their fellows. Though little is known of the method of recruitment, they appear to have constituted a self-perpetuating oligarchy. Their number varied: the highest known in this period was 28 in 1767;Cory Carpenter to Lady Bute, 22 Nov.

There was no one exclusive patron, but neighbouring squires had a natural interest in the borough: in the first place George Hunt of Lanhydrock, heir to the Robartes family; Thomas Pitt, sen. and jun., of Boconnoc; and Christopher Treise and his nephew John Morshead, of Lavethan. The Hunt family held one seat throughout the period 1754-90; but their hold was not absolute. The last attempt within this period to assert the Boconnoc interest was made at the by-election of 1762.

The Grosvenor family, seated at Eaton Hall, four miles from Chester, had considerable influence in the corporation; and their record of parliamentary service to the borough was almost unique: between 1715 and 1874 they held one seat without a break, and for 42 out of these 159 years both seats.

But there was always an independent party ready to oppose Grosvenor domination. Walter Thomas, one of its leaders, wrote to the Duke of Newcastle on 18 Aug. 1755:Add. 32858, f. 201.

The corporation, an oligarchical body, self-recruiting under a set of intricate rules, listed under the banners of neighbouring landowners. About 1754 the dominant parliamentary influence was with the Bromleys of Horseheath; and from about 1760 with the Yorkes of Wimpole, till Mortlock and the Rutland family captured the borough in the 1780’s. Between 1737 and 1774 elections were uncontested, and the 1st and 2nd Lord Montfort, for a time with the help of Lord Dupplin, managed the borough for the Government.

In 1754 Lord Verney, a large property owner at Wendover, was the patron of the borough. According to Oldfield, his tenants lived rent-free ‘on condition of giving their votes to such gentlemen as his Lordship should nominate’. Verney was careless and easy-going, and in 1768 an opposition was declared against him. Here is the story as told by Oldfield:

Marlow was venal, expensive, and faithless. During this period every election save one was contested; and three out of the eight Members who represented the borough were rejected after having sat for one Parliament only.

The strongest interest was in the Clayton family of Harleyford, two miles from Marlow. ‘Mr. Clayton stands very well here’, wrote Robinson in his survey for the general election of 1780—almost the only Member in this period of whom so much could be said.

Chipping Wycombe was controlled by the Wallers of Beaconsfield and the Earl of Shelburne, each patron recommending to one seat. The Wallers were an old Buckinghamshire family; Lord Shelburne’s interest was derived from his inheritance of the Petty property in Buckinghamshire. The patrons seem to have worked amicably together, and all elections during this period were uncontested.

Buckingham was a pocket borough of the Grenville family; and none but Grenvilles or relatives by marriage were returned during this period.

Aylesbury was squalid and venal, and without an established patron. Most of the neighbouring gentlemen preferred to leave the borough alone; elections were expensive; and rich outsiders were welcome. When Thomas Potter was appointed joint paymaster general in November 1756 he tried to conceal it from his constituents as long as possible, thus reducing the danger of a contested re-election. ‘I absolutely can’t afford above £500’, he wrote to his friend John Wilkes.

Amersham was a complete pocket borough of the Drake family of Shardeloes, one mile from Amersham, who owned most of the property in the town.