With a large freeman electorate open to venality and eager to encourage contests, Beverley proved unamenable to control. The only individual with a significant interest, Charles Anderson Pelham, created Lord Yarborough, who was owner of the so-called ‘Bar’ interest reckoned at about 200 votes, got little joy of it and sold it in lots during this period.Oldfield, Rep. Hist. v.
See BOROUGHBRIDGE
The traditional rivalry between the corporation and independent parties, the latter supported largely by the dissenters, many of whom were Quakers, could not be checked by the reluctance of candidates to stir up contests in a constituency where the substantial non-resident vote, much of it in Birmingham and London, added to the expense. Only two elections in this period went uncontested; and in 1790 the three candidates were all favourable to Pitt’s government.
Although Evesham was an open borough, the corporation had since 1661 always been much attached to the family of the Rushouts of Northwick in this neighbourhood, whose interest has been considered as the prevailing one, and sufficient to procure a seat in Parliament for one of that family. The other seat is open.This, apart from subjecting the Rushouts to considerable anxiety, gave adequate scope to ‘a combination of attorneys’ to manoeuvre the return of the second Member.Oldfield, Boroughs, ii, 263; Rep. Hist. v. 250.
Droitwich was a close borough which never gave any trouble to its patrons. There had been no contest since 1747 when the Foleys, who had long shared the nominations with the Winningtons, contrived to take both seats. Their intermarriage in 1776 led to another era of sharing. Thomas Foley, 2nd Baron Foley (d.1793) returned his brother Andrew and brother-in-law Winnington. On the latter’s death in 1805, Andrew Foley was joined by his son until 1807, when Winnington’s heir came in.
Bewdley was in the pocket of the Lyttelton family, high stewards of the borough, but they were not personally represented from 1796 when Andrews, a wealthy friend of the family, was returned. He made a gift of £3,000 towards building Bewdley bridge in 1801, and further gifts to the corporation of £1,000 in 1807 and £2,000 in 1808.W. R. Williams, Worcs.
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:
