Heytesbury

At the beginning of this period William Pierce Ashe A ’Court owned 16 burgages at Heytesbury and the 4th Duke of Marlborough the other ten. These patrons had nominated a Member each since 1772. The borough remained close.1J. A. Cannon, ‘Borough of Heytesbury in the 18th Cent.’, Wilts. Arch. Mag. lvii. 223. Marlborough returned relatives and friends. A ’Court, a Portland Whig, returned himself only as a stopgap and took paying guests. Charles Rose Ellis paid him £3,500 ‘for the remainder of the Parliament’ in 1793; Viscount Kirkwall in 1802 and Viscount FitzHarris in 1807 each paid £4,600. Election expenses scarcely exceeded £100 In 1802 A ’Court refused an overture to seat a friend of the Prince of Wales for £4,500, and subsequently, according to his son, looked for the highest bidder.2Minto, ii. 123; Malmesbury mss, Malmesbury to FitzHarris, 29 Apr. 1807; Wilts. RO 635/53, election bills, 1784-1830; 490/1373, A’Court to Radnor, 13 June 1802; Pembroke mss, A’Court to Pembroke, 4 Mar. 1812.

After the election of 1807 the Duke of Marlborough, whose quarrel with his heir had disposed him to make his Heytesbury property an appanage of his younger son Lord Francis Spencer, was advised against doing so3Add. 34460, f. 243. and resolved the problem by selling his moiety to A ’Court, who in 1812 returned both Members. On A ’Court’s death in 1817, his heir (Sir) William A ’Court obtained legal advice as to whether he might put casual tenants of his own choice in the burgage houses. Serjeant Lens advised against this, and the usual practice of letting to local tenants, removable at pleasure, at a shilling a year was continued.4Wilts. RO 635/54, 55.