Right of election

in inhabitants paying scot and lot

Background Information

Number of voters: about 2000

Constituency business
County
Date Candidate Votes
24 Jan. 1715 JOHN LADE
FISHER TENCH
31 Mar. 1722 GEORGE MEGGOTT
1,136
EDMUND HALSEY
921
Samuel Rush
719
Sir Fisher Tench
521
17 Jan. 1724 JOHN LADE vice Meggott, deceased
790
Sir Fisher Tench
533
Walter Bagnall
199
19 Aug. 1727 EDMUND HALSEY
SIR JOSEPH EYLES
23 Jan. 1730 THOMAS INWEN vice Halsey, deceased
826
Richard Lewin
540
6 June 1734 THOMAS INWEN
1,2391Poll
 
GEORGE HEATHCOTE
874
 
852
Richard Sheppard
850
 
824
6 May 1741 THOMAS INWEN
929
RALPH THRALE
904
Joseph Chitty
323
30 June 1743 ALEXANDER HUME vice Inwen, deceased
792
 
732
William Hammond
863
 
691
4 Aug. 1747 ALEXANDER HUME
1,158
WILLIAM BELCHIER
831
 
801
Sir James Creed
778
 
740
Main Article

Southwark, a populous borough, was a ward of the city of London, the returning officer, the bailiff, being appointed by the lord mayor. Brewing being the major industry, it was usually represented by one and sometimes two brewers, the other Members being London merchants. All the candidates returned were apparently Whigs.

In 1715, Lade, a brewer and an independent Whig, was re-elected unopposed with Tench, a South Sea director. In 1722 three brewers, Meggott, Halsey and Rush, stood, besides Tench, all singly,3Daily Post, 3 Mar. 1722.the first two being successful. At a by-election in 1724, Lade replaced Meggott. In 1727 two government supporters, Halsey and Eyles, were returned unopposed. On Halsey’s death in 1729, he was succeeded by Inwen, a brewer and an opposition Whig, who was re-elected in 1734 with George Heathcote, a London merchant and also an opposition Whig, in a contested election during which both sides spent about £1,000.4Harley Diary, 17 Feb. 1736. In 1741 he was returned again, with Ralph Thrale, another brewer, who voted with the Opposition.

On Inwen’s death in 1743, Alexander Hume, a director of the East India Company, stood.

After a violent opposition and an expensive scrutiny [costing him £3,500]5Add. 32995, f. 172. he carried the election. He was countenanced at this time by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales ... and was supported by the whole Administration both old and new, by all the public offices, by the East India and other public companies and by most of the merchants in and about London. But party spirit prevailed so much at that time, that although he had then ... a great personal interest in that borough he carried his election by a majority only of 42 out of above 1,500 votes.

In 1747 Hume was again returned ‘having gained the good will of the place so as to have but a faint opposition’,6Memorandum relating to Mr. Hume, 10 Dec. 1760, Add. 33055, ff. 265-7. together with Belchier, a banker and a government supporter.

Author
Notes
  • 1. Poll
  • 2. Scrutiny
  • 3. Daily Post, 3 Mar. 1722.
  • 4. Harley Diary, 17 Feb. 1736.
  • 5. Add. 32995, f. 172.
  • 6. Memorandum relating to Mr. Hume, 10 Dec. 1760, Add. 33055, ff. 265-7.