Commons 1754-1790

The borough was shared by the Drake and Hobart families. Under proper management the number of burgages was kept down, and the creation of faggot votes was prevented. By 1754 only extreme neglect could have lost the borough to the two families. Sir Francis Henry Drake of Buckland Abbey, within three or four miles of Bere Alston, managed it for both; and when he sold his share in it to Hugh, 1st Duke of Northumberland, the Earl of Buckinghamshire did likewise. Northumberland, dying 6 June 1786, left Bere Alston to his second son, Lord Algernon Percy.

Neighbouring landowners, among others John Harris of Pickwell, John Clevland of Tapley, and the Bassets of Heanton, had some influence in the borough, but money counted for most. In 1754 the candidates were John Harris, George Amyand, and John Fortescue, who had contested the borough in 1748 and was now supported by the Duke of Bedford.Fortescue to Rob. Butcher (Bedford’s agent), 23 Sept. 1753, Bedford mss. Amyand’s election was managed by John Clevland sen.

In 1754 Ashburton was controlled by John Harris of Hayne, through his marriage to the heiress of the Tuckfields, who had owned a moiety of the manor. When his wife died, a month before the general election, the property passed to his step-daughter, Lady Orford. To James Buller she wrote, 5 Apr. 1754:Buller mss.

Devon was completely controlled by the country gentlemen. The size of the county discouraged contests, and there were none during this period. Once elected, Members were sure of an uninterrupted tenure: of the six Members for the county 1754-90, three sat until they died, the other three until they were given peerages.

Throughout this period the Cavendishes controlled one seat at Derby. Robinson wrote about the borough in his survey for the general election of 1780: ‘The Devonshire family certainly have this place if they were to exert themselves, but they have hitherto prudently given up one and probably may do so again.’ The 4th Duke of Devonshire had considerable influence in the choice of the second Member, but the 5th Duke was usually concerned with one seat only. Shortly before the by-election of 1772 Lord George Cavendish wrote to the Duke of Portland:8 Jan. 1772, Portland mss.

One seat was always held by a Cavendish, the other usually by a country gentleman. The only contest of this period, that of 1768, was between two country gentlemen—the Cavendish seat was not in dispute, and the family were neutral. Lord Frederick wrote to the young Duke of Devonshire (who was on his grand tour) on 17 Nov. 1767:Devonshire mss.

Traditionally one seat was as a rule conceded to the Castle interest of the Percys, which from them passed to the 7th Duke of Somerset, and from him to the Wyndhams. The other seat was usually filled by representatives of gentry families owning property in the borough or its neighbourhood. The local gentlemen, who held most of the burgages, were long jealous of purchases by a single magnate which would ‘close the borough’ and deprive them of ‘mercenary respect’ at elections.

Carlisle was traditionally the scene of contest between the Howards, Earls of Carlisle, the Musgraves, and the Lowthers; and there was also a strong independent element among the freemen, always prepared to encourage candidates.

In 1761 the Howard interest was declining and the Lowther interest was getting stronger; and Sir James Lowther, taking advantage of Lord Carlisle’s minority, made his first attempt to capture the borough.

Sir James Lowther, 5th Bt., was the largest landowner in Cumberland and its chief political figure; the Earl of Carlisle, the Duke of Portland, and the Earl of Egremont were next in extent of territorial influence; and there was a number of gentry families whose co-operation in election matters was important. Before 1754 contests were rarer in Cumberland than in most other counties, and the practice of holding a county meeting to select candidates fell into disuse.

Until 1780 Truro was controlled by Lord Falmouth, and generally returned members of his family. But shortly before the general election of that year, a majority of the corporation rebelled, complaining that Falmouth’s ‘avarice, increasing with age, hath grossly abused a confidence as complete, perhaps, as unguarded disinterested friendship ever placed in man’.St. James’s Chron. 17 Oct. 1780. Led by Falmouth’s former agent,Jonathan Elford to Lady Bute, 17 Feb.