Yorkshire

Northallerton remained a close borough (without a corporation) jointly controlled since 1745 by the Peirse and Lascelles families, who returned one Member each. Henry Peirse of Bedale returned himself throughout, serving 50 years in all. Edward Lascelles succeeded his cousin to the other seat. On his becoming Lord Harewood, he returned his heir, at whose death there was an interval during which Peirse’s nephew kept the seat warm for the deceased’s brother. Henry Peirse wrote to the reformer Rev. Christopher Wyvill, 6 Dec. 1798:

Earl Fitzwilliam, sole patron of Malton by inheritance from his uncle the Marquess of Rockingham, secured the return of his nominees unopposed until 1807, despite rumours of opposition at most elections.NLW mss 17158, f. 16; The Times, 17 Dec. 1789; Morning Chron. 28 May 1796. Attention was necessary: the borough received £100 from each Member after elections, and the electors half a guinea each if they so desired. Fitzwilliam’s policy was to return Members connected with his late uncle as long as they were available.

The 5th Duke of Devonshire, whose father had acquired the nomination to one seat by marriage in 1758 and the other by purchase in 1762, controlled 74 out of 96 burgages. These were conveyed either for life or ad hoc to his tenants, none of them residents of Knaresborough, and the Members, who were relatives or friends of the duke on the Whig interest, were if possible returned by proxy.Oldfield, Rep. Hist. v.

Samuel Thornton, who represented Hull for over 20 years, described it as ‘a populous place, extremely difficult of control by the influence of the gentlemen who reside in it’.Fortescue mss, Thornton to Grenville, 27 Aug. 1806. The corporation, the Trinity House and the Dock Company (established in 1774) were the three formal agencies through which local merchant opinion could be expressed, but unless united, as they were in 1802, the influence of none of them was decisive.

Hedon was an open borough with a substantial outvote, difficult to manage. In 1802 only 58 voters were resident out of 203; 42 lived at Hull and 35 in London and its environs. The electorate had a reputation for venality and in 1803 it was alleged to be ‘the prevailing custom’ for freemen to receive (after the election) 20 guineas for a plumper and ten guineas for a split vote.

The boroughs of Boroughbridge and Aldborough formed part of the same parish and returned two Members each. The dukes of Newcastle had the predominant interest, but Henry, the 2nd Duke, had conceded one of the four seats to the family of the former ducal agent in the person of Andrew Wilkinson who, with his son Charles, came in for Aldborough. In this period the family was represented until his death in 1805 by Rev. James Wilkinson of Boroughbridge Hall, vicar of Sheffield, and thereafter by his sister Barbara and brother-in-law Rev. Marmaduke Lawson.

With a large freeman electorate open to venality and eager to encourage contests, Beverley proved unamenable to control. The only individual with a significant interest, Charles Anderson Pelham, created Lord Yarborough, who was owner of the so-called ‘Bar’ interest reckoned at about 200 votes, got little joy of it and sold it in lots during this period.Oldfield, Rep. Hist. v.

See BOROUGHBRIDGE

York was a large independent borough, returning wealthy Yorkshire landowners, usually with civic connexions. Outstanding among these were the Robinsons of Newby and the Thompsons of Marston, who between them virtually monopolized one of the York seats from the Restoration to Walpole’s fall. The corporation and the archbishop had a considerable influence. Contested elections were very expensive: in 1746 Sir Thomas Robinson, on being invited to put up for York on his family’s interest

Thirsk was a complete pocket borough, belonging to the Franklands of Thirkleby.