Lincolnshire

In 1784 Thomas Cooke, mayor of Stamford and returning officer, wrote about the borough:J. Drakard, Hist. Stamford, 155.

In 1762 John Page, who had represented Grimsby in the earlier part of the century, told the Duke of Newcastle that the electors of Grimsby were ‘venal to a man’.Add. 32942, f. 62. And he added:

Grimsby men hate joining of interest so much that no two candidates ever dared to own they supported each other, though at times there have been private undertakings between them.

Lincoln was an open borough, and contests were so frequent and expensive that in 1784 Sir Joseph Banks, a neighbouring gentleman, wrote: ‘after having distressed two or three families, no one will now attempt’.Mss of the Spalding Gentlemen’s Society. The Monsons of Burton and the Lumleys of Glentworth had the best interest, and several local gentlemen had influence, but any combination between the gentry was sure to be opposed by a third party among the freemen. The London outvoters comprised a considerable part of the electorate, and were always anxious for a contest.

Three interests struggled at Boston. The Berties, Dukes of Ancaster, were strong enough to carry one seat throughout the period; the second was disputed between the corporation interest and a third ‘independent’ group. Between 1741 and 1777 the corporation seat was held by two local men, John Michell and Charles Amcotts. On Amcotts’ death in 1777 the corporation brought in Humphrey Sibthorp of Canwick.

Oldfield wrote about Grantham in 1792: ‘The Duke of Rutland and Lord Brownlow, from their property in the town, the contiguity of their seats, and their personal interest, have the entire command of its representation.’ The same holds good throughout the period. When in 1766 John Calcraft, a friend of Lord Granby and son of a town clerk of Grantham, tried to establish an interest in the borough, obviously against the Custs, he received no encouragement from Belvoir;Recs. Cust. Fam. ii. 84, 249, 253; Add. 17496, ff.

The Cecils of Burghley, earls of Exeter and recorders of the borough since 1697, had controlled Stamford elections since 1734. Their nominations were not contested until 1809; nor did any opposition succeed until 1831.J. M. Lee ‘Stamford and the Cecils 1700-1885: a study in political control’ (Oxf. Univ. B. Litt.

Lincoln remained an open and expensive borough, despite the efforts of the neighbouring nobility and gentry to secure control over its representation. The freemen were eager to prevent any compromise among the former which was likely to minimize their say in elections, and, usually at the instigation of the London outvoters of whom there were nearly 200, encouraged a ‘third man’ to provide them with a contest.This draws on Sir J. W. F. Hill, Georgian Lincoln (1966), chs.

Since 1774, Charles Anderson Pelham, the future Lord Yarborough, who was the leading property owner at Grimsby and recorder of the borough, had returned both Members. His friends, the Blues, dominated the corporation. The rival faction, the Reds, of which the Clayton family were leaders, were eclipsed, and even in 1784 the best terms they could get were to accept one of Anderson Pelham’s nominees as their own, at their expense.

Although Grantham had not gone to the poll since 1772, it was listed by the Treasury as an open borough before the elections of 1790 and 1796, and at the latter election unquestionably became one. Previously, as Oldfield stated in 1792: ‘The Duke of Rutland and Lord Brownlow, from their property in the town, the contiguity of their seats, and their personal interest have the entire command of its representation’. Each patron returned his own relations.

The Duke of Ancaster returned one Member, as usual, in 1790; and the corporation regained the seat they had lost to a nabob in 1784 for want of a ready candidate by putting up Thomas Fydell, a merchant banker of their number who had been three times mayor.Oldfield, Rep. Hist. iv. 160. The nabob Watherston did not offer again and another nabob, Gen. Richard Smith, who appeared as a third man, fared badly at the poll. His and an electors’ petition against the return were not pursued.