in the corporation
Number of voters: 24
| Date | Candidate | Votes |
|---|---|---|
| 22 Apr. 1754 | JAMES EDWARD COLLETON | |
| THOMAS CLARKE | ||
| 9 Dec. 1754 | CLARKE re-elected after appointment to office | |
| 31 Mar. 1761 | GEORGE HOWARD | |
| JAMES EDWARD COLLETON | ||
| 4 Apr. 1766 | FRANCIS SEYMOUR CONWAY, Visct. Beauchamp, vice Howard, appointed to office | |
| 19 Mar. 1768 | HENRY CAVENDISH | |
| CHARLES BRETT | ||
| 11 Oct. 1774 | ARTHUR HILL, Visct. Fairford | |
| CHARLES BRETT | ||
| 28 Nov. 1776 | THOMAS POTTER vice Brett, vacated his seat | |
| 27 May 1778 | POTTER re-elected after appointment to office | |
| 9 Sept. 1780 | JOHN ST. JOHN | |
| THOMAS DE GREY | ||
| 1 Dec. 1780 | GEORGE JOHNSTONE vice St. John, chose to sit for Newport | |
| 4 June 1781 | GEORGE CAPEL, Visct. Malden, vice de Grey, called to the Upper House | |
| 8 Apr. 1784 | JOHN SINCLAIR | |
| JOHN THOMAS ELLIS |
The dominant interest was in Lord Edgcumbe, and in 1754 and 1761 he returned two Treasury candidates. In June 1764, with Edgcumbe in opposition to the Grenville Administration, Thomas Pitt jun. was approached through his uncle, Charles Lyttelton, bishop of Carlisle, with the suggestion that he should try to re-establish his family interest at Lostwithiel. He replied in a letter of 16 June which the bishop sent on to Grenville:1Grenville mss (JM).
It is true that borough has cost us some money and not a little plague; we had, and I believe I still have, in the town and among the seventeen [common councilmen] a natural interest which might easily be revived; but from the constitution of the borough you will see the whole power is thrown into the aldermen.
He saw little chance of destroying Edgcumbe’s hold on Lostwithiel, and for his own part was unwilling to make the attempt. Edgcumbe retained the nomination of both Members throughout the period.
- 1. Grenville mss (JM).