Commons 1790-1820

The leading interests were those of the Foley, Lygon, Ward, Lyttelton, Cocks and Coventry families. There was no change in the representation from 1775 until 1803, and no contest from 1741 until 1806. On the death of Foley the Whig Member in 1803, his nephew Lord Foley pressed Ward, Viscount Dudley’s son, then Member for Downton, to stand. This step was approved by the lord lieutenant, Coventry, and by the other Member, Lygon, and urged by his father, so Ward agreed, sure that it would be ‘extremely difficult’ to turn him out ‘at any future election’.

Wootton Bassett was an open borough. Although the dominant interest of the St. Johns of Lydiard Tregoze, Viscounts Bolingbroke, had been challenged in 1784 by the 1st Earl of Clarendon, lord of the manor, with Treasury support, the bid failed: the returning officer was named by the St. Johns.J. A. Cannon, ‘The Parl. Rep. of six Wilts. Boroughs 1754-90’ (Bristol Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1958), i. 343. The St.

Wilton was a pocket borough of the 10th and 11th Earls of Pembroke, who used it to return relatives or close friends of the family, of which the corporation was likewise composed. A potentially embarrassing situation arose in 1789, when William Gerard Hamilton offended his patron by joining opposition over the Regency and still expected to be confirmed in his seat, but it was resolved by a firm refusal to yield and Hamilton found a seat elsewhere.

Westbury was a close borough where Willoughby Bertie, 4th Earl of Abingdon, owned all but one or two of the burgages. Since 1786 he had sold the seats to satisfy his creditors.J. A. Cannon, ‘The Parl. Rep. of six Wilts. Boroughs 1754-90’ (Bristol Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1958), i. 294; Oldfield, Rep. Hist. v. 145. The Treasury noted in 1788 that one of the Members, John Madocks, might be succeeded by his son, who was in opposition: but that did not take place.

At Salisbury, an eminently respectable corporation borough, one seat was awarded to the recorder, the 2nd Earl of Radnor, who in 1795 presented the city with a new Council House:

Old Sarum, a depopulated pocket borough, was the property of Thomas Pitt, 1st Lord Camelford, in whose family it had been since 1692. He returned supporters of his kinsman Pitt’s administration. On his death in 1793 his heir was a minor and subsequently abroad for several years, so his widow and other trustees had the nomination of the Members.

Marlborough was described by Thomas Bruce, 1st Earl of Ailesbury, to his son Lord Bruce in 1802, as ‘a friendly borough’. Friendly to him, seated five miles away, it certainly was, for his nominees, most of them members of his family, were returned without demur. As at Great Bedwyn, he had only to make his choice and fix his terms. The corporation, nominally 20 in number, had long been reduced to a dozen and consisted of a mere handful of reliable supporters in this period.Ailesbury mss, Ailesbury to Bruce, 23 June 1802; Geo. III Corresp. iv. 3428; Oldfield, Rep.

Malmesbury was completely controlled by Dr Edmund Wilkins, the local apothecary and receiver-general, as high steward of the borough, between 1775 and his death in May 1804. He retained ten of the corporation for an annuity of £30 against the security of a £500 bond from each of them. From 1789 he expected his paying guests to support Pitt’s administration, which in 1792 paid him £269 17s. out of the secret service fund on account of the election. Paul Benfield was required to vacate in 1792 after acting with opposition.

In 1790 the Selwyn control of Ludgershall was challenged for the first time since 1747. George Selwyn had long neglected ‘that beggarly place’, as he contemptuously termed the borough, and now Thomas Everett, a London banker of local origins, who owned a number of freeholds at Ludgershall and had purchased the Biddesden estate, put up his banking partners, John Drummond and his brother. They were not successful, but Selwyn realized that he would hand on a ‘diminished interest’ to his heir, Viscount Sydney.

Hindon had been much contested in the second half of the 18th century, but by 1790 the borough, still listed as ‘open’ by the Treasury, was firmly in the hands of two patrons, William Beckford of Fonthill and Sir Henry Gough Calthorpe (created Baron Calthorpe in 1796). Each patron recommended one Member, without opposition, between 1790 and 1820.