Devon’s size, scattered population and large electorate, which entailed heavy expense in transporting of voters to the poll at Exeter, were strong deterrents to would-be contestants. The contest of 1790 was the first for 78 years and another 26 elapsed before the next one worthy of the name.
Since 1780 the corporation nominee, Edward Coke of Longford, had joined interests with the 5th Duke of Devonshire, whose nomination to one seat at least was long established and who returned his brother. Both Members were Foxite Whigs, but neither voted for parliamentary reform in 1793, despite a petition from Derby in its favour (6 May). At the election of 1796 a local physician of means, Peter Crompton, standing as a reformer, made no impact against them, though he was said to have great influence on the corporation.Jnl.
There was no contest between 1768 and 1820. The dukes of Devonshire returned one Member, invariably a member of the Cavendish family, as a Whig, and the gentry returned the other, during this period a Mundy of Shipley, as an independent.
Cockermouth remained a pocket borough of the Lowther family until 1832. James, 1st Earl of Lonsdale, usually returned personal adherents, but when Sir William Lowther succeeded to his electoral influence he frequently placed a seat at the disposal first of the Pittites and later of administration.
Since 1761 the main theme of Carlisle politics had been the bid of James Lowther, Earl of Lonsdale, to monopolize the representation through control of the corporation. He was opposed in turn by the Duke of Portland, by the Earl of Carlisle and by the Duke of Norfolk, who relied on the independent local gentry opposed to the Lowther interest and the lower order of voters, ever eager for a contest.
Having failed in his ambition to carry both Members for the county in 1768 and likewise in his subsequent attempts to buy out his competitors, James Lowther, Earl of Lonsdale, adhered to the compromise reached in 1774 whereby he returned one Member, and the independent junto led by the Dukes of Portland and Norfolk and the Earls of Carlisle and Egremont the other. The pact had been ineffectually challenged in 1774 and 1780 by Sir Joseph Pennington and his son John. By 1787 Lonsdale was on the defensive and anxious to canvass for the next election.
The Boscawens of nearby Tregothnan, Viscounts Falmouth, were recorders and patrons of Truro. In 1788 George Evelyn, 3rd Viscount, reached a compromise with Sir Francis Basset, who had been contesting the borough since 1780, whereby Basset agreed to leave him in peace at Truro in exchange for the purchase of Falmouth’s property at Tregony. After this there was no contest until 1818, but it did not mean that Falmouth was secure.
Tregony, ‘an inconsiderable village, without trade’, had a turbulent electoral history in this period. In 1788 Lord Falmouth, who had the principal interest, disposed of his property there to Sir Francis Basset, who had challenged him in 1784 and had also bought up property in other hands. It was he who in June returned Hugh Seymour Conway.
In 1787, after a struggle lasting seven years, private patronage prevailed over government influence in the electoral control of Saltash: John Buller, of nearby Morval, and William Beckford, who had been acting in electoral partnership since 1783, were the victors and they had drawn up a written agreement (which has not been found) whereby each nominated one Member.
From 1790 George Nugent Temple Grenville, 1st Marquess of Buckingham, assumed sole parliamentary patronage of St. Mawes, having inherited in 1788 his father-in-law Earl Nugent’s moiety and having purchased the interest of the co-patron Hugh Boscawen, who accordingly gave up the seat he had personally occupied for 16 years at the dissolution. The Whigs found that they had no chance when they contemplated contesting the borough in 1790.Ginter, Whig Organization, 190.
