Right of election

in the freemen

Background Information

Number of voters: about 70

Constituency business
County
Date Candidate Votes
21 June 1790 SIR JOHN WILLIAM DE LA POLE, Bt.
JOHN PARDOE
30 May 1796 JOHN BULLER II
SITWELL SITWELL
22 Nov. 1796 JOHN HOOKHAM FRERE vice Buller, vacated his seat
7 July 1802 JAMES BULLER II
THOMAS SMITH
21 Dec. 1803 QUINTIN DICK vice Smith, vacated his seat
23 Jan. 1805 RALPH ALLEN DANIELL vice Buller, vacated his seat
1 Nov. 1806 JAMES BULLER II
RALPH ALLEN DANIELL
17 Apr. 1807 BULLER re-elected after appointment to office
8 May 1807 JAMES BULLER II
RALPH ALLEN DANIELL
17 Jan. 1812 SIR JOSEPH SYDNEY YORKE vice Buller, appointed to office
10 Oct. 1812 CHARLES BULLER
ANTHONY BULLER
11 Mar. 1816 HENRY WILLIAM FITZGERALD DE ROS vice Charles Buller, vacated his seat
CHARLES HULSE
19 June 1818 SIR CHARLES HULSE, Bt.
HENRY GOULBURN
Main Article

The Bullers of Morval remained in uncontested control of West Looe throughout the period. John Buller (d.1793) continued his policy of selling the seats to friends of administration in 1790. His son John, who inherited the patronage, was all set to do the same in 1796; John Hookham Frere, reported his friend Canning in May, was to come in ‘at a very easy price, for a very easy seat in a Cornish borough’. But some difficulty arose which was not ironed out until September, and meanwhile the patron returned himself.1Harewood mss, Canning to Rev. Leigh, 17 May, 28 Sept. 1796. In November he vacated his seat for Frere, who paid £2,000.

In December 1801 Pitt, although he was no longer prime minister, seems to have been confident that Buller would again return two friends of his, for he asked whether Frere (then in Lisbon) would like to come in again on ‘approximately the same terms as before’.2Add. 38833, f. 65. Frere decided to give up the seat and Buller returned Thomas Smith together with his own brother James, who in 1807 took office under Portland. This pattern continued: Buller returned two other brothers, Charles and Anthony, and two connexions by marriage (Yorke and Hulse), but continued to find room for friends of administration when applied to by them. The arrangement met with no opposition in the borough until 1822, when the right of the inhabitant householders was espoused and that of the non-resident freemen challenged. Signatories of the indentures of return fell steadily in number from 40 in 1790 to 22 in 1818.3Information from Mr James Derriman.

Author
Notes
  • 1. Harewood mss, Canning to Rev. Leigh, 17 May, 28 Sept. 1796.
  • 2. Add. 38833, f. 65.
  • 3. Information from Mr James Derriman.