John Calcraft of Rempstone, whose father had obtained entire command of Wareham by 1768, remained unchallenged patron throughout the period. Even fellow Whigs were paying guests: Romilly in 1808 was expected to pay £3,000 and to attend his election.Mems, ii. 243-4. In 1812 Whig hopes that Calcraft would reserve a seat for one of them, entertained particularly by Henry Brougham, were disappointed when he brought in two ‘purchasers’.Add.
Every general election was contested at Shaftesbury between 1761 and 1812, as a succession of would-be patrons were overthrown by the expense and corruption of the borough. In 1784 the ‘Asiatic interest’ of Sir Francis Sykes was defeated by Hans Winthrop Mortimer, who carried the second seat as well. Mortimer had been on the scene since 1771 and owned the majority of the houses (about 200).
The fluctuating relationships among three interests made Poole difficult to manage and there had been contests since 1765. The oligarchy of Newfoundland merchants and the local gentry who vied for influence on the corporation having had recourse to government, particularly to the Admiralty, to tip the scales, had instigated a triangle of chicanery from which there proved to be no escape. The defeat of Joseph Gulston in 1784 and his subsequent death leaving his affairs in disarray eliminated that interest.
The 9th and 10th Earls of Westmorland remained in complete control of Lyme from 1784, when opposition to them had last been attempted, until 1832, invariably returning members of their family.
Of the electoral situation in the borough, John Crane, a local physician friendly to Pitt’s administration wrote to Lord Grenville (25 Feb. 1790):Fortescue mss; PRO 30/8/127, f. 19; 331, ff. 7, 9.
The agreement whereby the Bond and Bankes families returned a Member each during this period was disturbed only by the accidents of family history. Thus on Nathaniel Bond’s retirement in 1807, as there was no member of the family desirous of his seat, it went to a neighbouring country gentleman, Peter William Baker. On the latter’s death in 1815, as there was still no Bond available, the Bankes family were given custody of the seat for one of themselves until John Bond junior came of age in 1823.
Bridport defied management. Charles Sturt, whose family interest enabled him to return himself and a fellow Whig in 1784, had to cede one seat in 1790, although it was thought he might ‘by a little exertion recover the whole’. The new Member, Watson the recorder, was the champion of the dissenting majority on the corporation, at that time well disposed to Pitt’s ministry.
No Dorset county seat had been contested since 1727. ‘The gentlemen of the county being numerous and opulent’, no family could claim a controlling influence. Lord Rivers came nearest to being ‘the leading aristocratical interest’, to quote Oldfield.Boroughs, i. 174. His son George Pitt gave up his seat for health reasons in 1790 in favour of his cousin William Morton Pitt of Encombe, and Francis Browne stood again. Lord Uxbridge thought of putting up his heir Lord Paget, but, so he informed Pitt (9 Sept. 1790):
Electoral influence was exercised at Totnes through the corporation, which had the power of creating freemen. A large municipal debt, which became increasingly unmanageable during the 18th century, was an important factor in ensuring the corporation’s subservience to beneficent patrons, either men of their own number or neighbouring landowners.PP (1835), xxiii. 641-5; P.
Since the bitter struggle of 1765 Tiverton had been under the joint control of Nathaniel Ryder, 1st Baron Harrowby, and his ally Sir John Duntze, an Exeter merchant and banker. The Ryders had no property in Tiverton, but their interest was the stronger of the two. It dated from the 1730s and was founded on and sustained by the provision of civil, military and ecclesiastical patronage for members of the corporation and their families and by loans and gifts to local tradesmen, especially during the wartime dislocation of the woollen trade.
