Right of election

in the freemen

Background Information

Number of voters: 800-900

Constituency business
County
Date Candidate Votes
3 Feb. 1715 SIR CHARLES HOTHAM
SIR MICHAEL WARTON
30 Mar. 1722 MICHAEL NEWTON
552
SIR CHARLES HOTHAM
493
Ellerker Bradshaw
353
31 Jan. 1723 SIR CHARLES HOTHAM vice Sir Charles Hotham, deceased
519
Ellerker Bradshaw
239
18 Aug. 1727 CHARLES PELHAM
714
ELLERKER BRADSHAW
676
Sir Charles Hotham
227
HOTHAM vice Bradshaw, on petition, 8 Mar. 1729
26 Apr. 1734 SIR CHARLES HOTHAM
674
ELLERKER BRADSHAW
603
Charles Pelham
130
2 Feb. 1738 CHARLES PELHAM vice Hotham, deceased
432
Sir Robert Hildyard
389
5 May 1741 CHARLES PELHAM
741
WILLIAM STRICKLAND
529
Ellerker Bradshaw
356
1 July 1747 CHARLES PELHAM
SIR WILLIAM CODRINGTON
Main Article

For nearly a century the representation of Beverley was practically monopolized by two neighbouring families, the Wartons and the Hothams. When Sir Michael Warton, the last of his line, retired in 1722, his interest passed to his nephews and coheirs, Michael Newton, an opposition Whig, M.P. Beverley 1722-7, and Charles Pelham, a Tory, who sat for the borough 1727-34 and 1738-54. From Warton’s retirement till the Hotham interest fell into abeyance in 1738, on the death of the 5th baronet, leaving an infant heir, there was a series of contests caused by the intervention of Ellerker Bradshaw, a neighbouring country gentleman, who ousted Hotham in 1727 by methods resulting not only in his being unseated on petition but in the passing of the Bribery Act of 1729; recovered his seat in 1734 by defeating Charles Pelham; and was finally defeated by Pelham and William Strickland in 1741. In 1747 Pelham was unopposed with Sir William Codrington, whose uncle, Slingsby Bethell owned considerable property in that part of Yorkshire. In the 2nd Lord Egmont’s electoral survey, c.1749-50, Beverley is described as ‘in Charles Pelham and the adjacent county gentlemen’.

Author