in persons paying church and poor rates, resident or non-resident
Number of voters: about 400
Date | Candidate | Votes |
---|---|---|
16 Apr. 1754 | JOSEPH DAMER, Baron Milton | |
JOHN PITT | ||
11 Dec. 1756 | PITT re-elected after appointment to office | |
25 Mar. 1761 | JOSEPH DAMER, Baron Milton | |
THOMAS FOSTER | ||
7 May 1762 | JOHN DAMER vice Milton, called to the Upper House | |
23 Dec. 1765 | WILLIAM EWER vice Foster, deceased | |
16 Mar. 1768 | JOHN DAMER | 218 |
WILLIAM EWER | 143 |
|
Laurence Cox | 85 |
|
10 Oct. 1774 | WILLIAM EWER | 232 |
JOHN DAMER | 214 |
|
Anthony Chapman | 145 |
|
11 Sept. 1780 | GEORGE DAMER | 128 |
WILLIAM EWER | 112 |
|
John Floyer | 23 |
|
31 Mar. 1784 | GEORGE DAMER | |
WILLIAM EWER | ||
4 July 1789 | THOMAS EWER vice William Ewer, deceased | |
30 Jan. 1790 | CROPLEY ASHLEY vice Ewer, deceased |
There was no dominant interest, but a number of local landowners had influence: the Earl of Shaftesbury, high steward 1757-71; Lord Milton, high steward 1771-98; the Earl of Cholmondeley; and the Pitts of Encombe. There was also an independent vote. In 1754 John Pitt, one of the sitting Members, concluded a compromise with Lord Milton. Lord Malpas, defeated at Dorchester in 1752, who had intended to stand again, was persuaded by Henry Pelham to support the compromise. William Templeman, of a family of local attorneys much concerned in Dorset borough elections, wrote to Malpas, 23 Mar. 1754,1Add. 32734, f. 363. that Pitt and Milton, having disobliged the corporation, ‘the town is now in the greatest ferment, and the cry is an opposition they will have’. In the end there was no contest in 1754 nor in 1761, but an opposition they did have at the next three general elections.
- 1. Add. 32734, f. 363.