Since 1780 William Praed, the banker, whose family’s parliamentary interest in the borough had existed for over a century, had been in undisputed control of St. Ives, of which he was recorder, after a spate of contests. There was no opposition in 1790, 1796 or 1802, though in 1790 the Duke of Leeds was informed by an agent:
St. Germans was under the sole patronage of the Lords Eliot of Port Eliot, from 1815 Earls of St. Germans. The 1st Baron Eliot returned his sons for one seat and friends of government for the other, except in 1802. His heir tended to do likewise, returning in-laws and cousins for one seat. In 1806 the prime minister Lord Grenville was uncertain of Eliot’s support and the latter accused him of encouraging an opposition (chiefly at Liskeard but also at St. Germans) against the patron’s own brother-in-law Sir Joseph Yorke, 7 Nov.
The principal property owners at Penryn were Sir Francis Basset, its recorder; the Duke of Leeds, who held the manor and some leases from the bishop of Exeter; the Earl of Mount Edgcumbe and Mr Trefusis. The two former, who were then political opponents, agreed to return one Member each in 1790, Basset returning himself and the duke his friend Glover, at no charge to the latter: an opportunist had offered £4,000 for a seat for the borough.Oldfield, Boroughs, i. 96; Add. 28066, f. 36; 33110, f.
By his purchase of the Werrington estate of the Morice family in the 1770s, the 1st Duke of Northumberland became patron of Newport, as well as of Launceston: he became the owner of most of the burgages, but some were owned by Sir Jonathan Phillipps of Newport House.Oldfield, Boroughs, i. 113; A. F. Robbins, Launceston Past and Present, 289. For over 40 years, however, no firm opposition was offered to the dukesAdd. 23668, f.
After the expensive contest between Viscount Falmouth and Sir Francis Basset for control of Mitchell in 1784, a compromise ensued by which each party returned one Member in 1790,Oldfield, Boroughs, i. 78. Basset naming Howell again and Falmouth Christopher Hawkins. Before the election of 1796 Basset sold his property at Mitchell to Hawkins, who, though sitting in that Parliament on Falmouth’s interest, henceforward shared the parliamentary patronage with him.
The earls of Mount Edgcumbe, George, 1st Earl (d.1795) and Richard his heir, recorders of the borough, retained their control over the corporation and thus the nomination to both seats at Lostwithiel throughout the period. As long as the mayor and six aldermen were in their interest, the patronage was safe, but they still thought it wise to have friendly peers and revenue officers (who could not vote at parliamentary elections) made common councilmen.
The Bullers of Morval remained in uncontested control of West Looe throughout the period. John Buller (d.1793) continued his policy of selling the seats to friends of administration in 1790. His son John, who inherited the patronage, was all set to do the same in 1796; John Hookham Frere, reported his friend Canning in May, was to come in ‘at a very easy price, for a very easy seat in a Cornish borough’.
John Buller† of East Looe (d.1786) left a secure interest there to his eldest son John Buller I. The latter had been in India since 1777 and in his absence made first his uncle William Buller bishop of Exeter (d.1796), then his first cousin once removed, James Buller of Downes, his ‘confidential agent’ for East Looe.
Until 1802 Edward Eliot, 1st Baron Eliot of Port Eliot, maintained his family’s long-established control of Liskeard unchallenged, paying the borough expenses and selecting the few freemen not on the corporation from among his friends. He returned his sons again in 1790 and 1796 and nothing came of a report that (Sir) Christopher Hawkins would attack him at the latter election.Oldfield, Boroughs, i. 117; St. Germans mss, Hon. E. J. to Ld. Eliot, 15 Feb.
By purchasing the Morice family’s estate of Werrington, Hugh, 1st Duke of Northumberland, acquired the leading interest from 1780; his heir Hugh, who succeeded to the title and to the recordership of Launceston in 1786, preserved his interest there by charging low rents and finding places for the corporators, as well as by keeping down the number of freemen created. Having fallen out with Pitt he had refused to return George Rose, the latter’s secretary at the Treasury, when he sought re-election at Launceston in 1788, and this decision had disagreeable consequences for him.
