Right of election

in the corporation

Background Information
Constituency business
County
Date Candidate Votes
26 Jan. 1715 SIR PETER MEWS
WILLIAM ETTRICK
9 Mar. 1717 FRANCIS GWYN vice Ettrick, deceased
24 Mar. 1722 SIR PETER MEWS
FRANCIS GWYN
22 Feb. 1724 EDWARD PRIDEAUX GWYN vice Francis Gwyn, chose to sit for Wells
13
Joseph Hinxman
5
9 Apr. 1726 JACOB BANKS vice Mews, deceased
18 Aug. 1727 JOSEPH HINXMAN
6
CHARLES WITHER
7
Jacob Banks
4
Edward Hooper
5
22 Jan. 1732 PHILIP LLOYD vice Wither, deceased
John Hodges
24 Apr. 1734 EDWARD HOOPER
JOSEPH HINXMAN
3 Apr. 1740 CHARLES ARMAND POWLETT vice Hinxman, deceased
Joseph Hinxman
9 May 1741 CHARLES ARMAND POWLETT
EDWARD HOOPER
22 July 1742 HOOPER re-elected after appointment to office
29 June 1747 CHARLES ARMAND POWLETT
EDWARD HOOPER
30 Dec. 1748 SIR THOMAS ROBINSON vice Hooper, appointed to office
23 Dec. 1749 SIR THOMAS ROBINSON re-elected after appointment to office
26 Nov. 1751 HARRY POWLETT vice Charles Armand Powlett, deceased
Main Article

In 1715 to the Christchurch corporation returned the former Tory Members, Sir Peter Mews, lord of the manor of Christchurch, and William Ettrick, who had represented the borough since the Revolution. On Ettrick’s death in 1716 he was succeeded unopposed by another Tory, Francis Gwyn, who had represented Christchurch in the previous reign. Re-elected with Mews in 1722 but choosing to sit for Wells, Gwynn was succeeded by his son, also a Tory, against Joseph Hinxman, a local Whig landowner. Hinxman petitioned on the ground that the election was invalid, having been conducted without a legal mayor, and that a number of Gwyn’s voters were ‘new-made illegal burgesses’,2CJ, xx. 286. but no decision was reached on the petition.

In 1726 Mews died childless, leaving his estate to his wife, who appears to have allowed the interest to lapse. At the ensuing by-election the vacancy was filled by a Tory, Jacob Banks, without a contest; but at the general election of 1727 Hinxman, standing with Charles Wither, another government supporter, against Banks and Edward Hooper, an opposition Whig, arranged for the writ to be sent to one of his supporters, who presided at the poll as returning officer. The voting was, for Hooper 9, Banks 8, Wither 7, Hinxman 6. Disallowing four of Hooper’s and Banks’s votes, the returning officer declared Hinxman and Wither to have been elected, for which his son was said to have been presented with ‘a good benefice ... by a great man’.3Case of Richard Holoway, a burgess of Christchurch, 19, 24. A petition was lodged but no decision was reached on it.

In 1734 Hinxman shared the representation with Hooper, whose seat at Heron Court, four miles from the borough, gave him a strong natural interest at Christchurch. On Hinxman’s death in 1740 he was replaced by C. A. Powlett, whose family thenceforth shared the representation with Hooper. In 1748 Hooper gave up his seat in return for a commissionership of customs to accommodate Sir Thomas Robinson, but continued to retain his interest.4Hooper to Newcastle, 5 Sept. 1757, Add. 32873, f. 486.

Author
Notes
  • 1. List of Christchurch voters, 22 Feb. 1724, Cholmondeley (Houghton) mss.
  • 2. CJ, xx. 286.
  • 3. Case of Richard Holoway, a burgess of Christchurch, 19, 24.
  • 4. Hooper to Newcastle, 5 Sept. 1757, Add. 32873, f. 486.