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.
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.
