Wiltshire

In 1754 the Earl of Abingdon owned the majority of the burgages at Westbury, yet his hold on the borough was very tenuous. The borough was difficult to control because the right of voting lay in the lessee of the burgage, not the owner; and because the practice had been to grant long leases, which reduced Abingdon’s hold on his tenants. ‘As most of the tenants were poor, it afforded great scope for any adventurer to fight his Lordship with his own weapons by buying off his tenants.’‘Case of the Borough of Westbury’, 1767, Bodl. Top. Wilts. c.5.

The corporation of Marlborough was a small, self-electing body, which had arrogated to itself effective power over the creation of freemen. Throughout this period Marlborough was a pocket borough of Lord Bruce (created in 1776 Earl of Ailesbury), whose seat at Tottenham Park was five miles from the town. The Duke of Marlborough owned property in the borough, and in 1762 threatened to ‘exert his influence in elections’.

Old Sarum was the extreme example of a rotten borough: by 1754 nothing was left of it except its parliamentary representation; and the small number of burgages, all owned by the Pitts of Boconnoc, made complete control possible.

Malmesbury was one of the smallest corporation boroughs in the country, yet very difficult to control. The chief interest was in the high steward, elected annually by the corporation; and the borough was usually managed by his deputy. There was a regular scale of payments to the burgesses.

In the early part of the eighteenth century the family of Ashe owned a majority of the burgages at Heytesbury. On the death of Edward Ashe in 1748 the property was bequeathed first to his nephew William, and failing his line, to the heirs of Edward’s sister, Elizabeth, who had married Pierce A’Court. William died two years later without issue, and control of the borough passed to Pierce A’Court, the elder son of Elizabeth.

Most of the adult male inhabitants of Hindon had the right to vote; and the size of the electorate made effective control difficult, yet was sufficiently small to encourage the attempt. In the early part of the 18th century the chief interest was in the Calthorpe family, lessees of the manor of Hindon, who first sat for the borough in 1698.

In 1754 the foremost interest at Great Bedwyn was in Lord Bruce, who owned the estate of Tottenham Park; next came Lord Verney, who in 1752 had bought the manor of Stock. There was also a number of independent burgages.

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.

Anthony Duncombe, M.P. for Downton from 1734 until created Lord Feversham in 1747, leased the manor of Downton (with the appointment of the returning officer) from the bishop of Winchester (the lord of the manor), and owned a majority of the burgages. Until his death in 1763 he controlled Downton without any serious opposition.

Chippenham is a rare example during this period of a burgage borough which had not been closed up. The borough had patrons, but no single individual held enough burgages to reduce the smaller holders to insignificance; these moreover included a number of substantial local merchants who by banding together could prevent the borough from being turned into private domain. One seat was held 1737-80 by Edward Bayntun Rolt, the other throughout the period, with a break of five years, by the Fludyer family.