Newport, a suburb of Launceston, had no municipal organization. The manorial court every year elected two ‘vianders’, and it had been contended in 1628 that the freeholders could claim the poll in parliamentary elections only if the vianders disagreed on the choice of candidates. Normally only a couple of dozen voters attested the returns, but the indenture for the contested election of February 1679 carries 75 signatures.
Mitchell was little more than a hamlet on the high road through Cornwall. As lord of the manor Sir John Arundell of Lanherne, a Roman Catholic, exercised a discreet influence over elections, doubtless in favour of Humphrey Borlase, one of his principal tenants, who lived in the borough and had many Roman Catholic connexions. The Protestant Arundells of Trerice and the Courtneys of Trethurfe also enjoyed an interest. The system of election was peculiar.
Lostwithiel was the administrative centre of the duchy of Cornwall, a sessions town, and the usual venue of county elections. The franchise in this period was limited to the corporation, consisting of seven ‘capital burgesses’ or aldermen (one of whom acted as mayor and returning officer) and 17 assistants. This body also nominated the stannators of Foymore. In 1660 Walter Moyle and John Clayton, a Yorkshire industrialist whom he had brought in for the borough in Richard Cromwell’s Parliament, stood jointly for re-election.
Although West Looe consisted only of a single street and a few straggling cottages, it had a longer corporate history than its neighbour, and its franchise was wider, consisting of eight ‘capital burgesses’ and 54 ‘free tenants’ in 1679. Perhaps in consequence the Trelawny interest was less dominant, and was exercised chiefly through the corporation, which controlled the freeman roll. At the general election of 1660 the borough returned their two most persistent rivals, John Buller of Morval, the recorder, and John Kendall of Treworgey.
East Looe, the larger of the twin boroughs, was incorporated in 1588. The Elizabethan charter established a common council of nine ‘chief burgesses’, with power to increase their numbers, and vested in them the parliamentary franchise. No provision was made for ‘inferior burgesses’, or freemen, who certainly voted at municipal elections, and sometimes attested the returns to Parliament. The borough was controlled throughout this period by the Trelawnys of Trelawne, except in 1681 when one seat was conceded to the Kendall interest.
The corporation of Liskeard, consisting of the mayor and eight aldermen, controlled admission to the franchise, but the size of the roll of freemen in 1663 suggests that they were by no means unduly restrictive, and may account for the absence of an obviously dominant interest, though by the end of the period Sir Bourchier Wrey of Trebigh for the Tories and John Buller for the Whigs were dividing the borough. As a coinage town, Liskeard was also open to the influence of the warden of the stannaries.G. R. Lewis, Stannaries, 44-45, 106; J. Allen, Hist.
As the assize town for Cornwall and one of the coinage towns for the stannaries, Launceston was usually susceptible to government influence. But a preference for local candidates enabled the Coryton and Granville families to exercise strong natural interests; while the corporation, consisting of mayor, recorder, town clerk, and eight ‘burgesses’ or aldermen, controlled admission to the franchise and nominated the stannatory of Foymore.
The corporation of Helston nominated the stannators of Penwith and Kerrier. Returns were made by the mayor in the name of the ‘commonalty’, consisting of four aldermen and an unlimited number of freemen chosen by the corporation. Signatures on undisputed returns vary from 57 to 98. The dominant interest was held by the Godolphin family, whose principal residence was five miles away and who owned property in the town. Separate representation had been suspended from 1653 to 1659, and it was not until 1689 that a single return was made in proper form.
The most persistent interests at Grampound in this period were exercised by two minor gentry families, the Herles of Prideaux and the Tanners of Courte, behind whom stood the local Presbyterian magnate, Hugh Boscawen. Nevertheless this powerful junto had to cede one seat in 1661, and totally lost control in February 1679 and 1685 to a rival borough-monger, (Sir) Joseph Tredenham. The returns were in the name of the mayor, the ‘burgesses’ (presumably the eight aldermen) and the ‘inhabitants’ or freemen.
No contests are known to have occurred at Fowey in this period. Before the charter of 1685 the returns were made by the portreeve in the name of the ‘burgesses’ and ‘inhabitants’. The two groups seem to have had roughly equal numbers. The latter usually favoured the Rashleighs, as the greatest merchants and shipowners in the town. The former, sometimes called the ‘prince’s tenants’, held their property on lease from the duchy of Cornwall. Of the 28 burgages listed in 1650 the Rashleighs held 15. Their only conceivable rivals were the Treffrys of Place House, who held three.
