The lord of the manor of Mitchell in 1754 was Lord Arundell of Wardour, a Roman Catholic who took no active part in politics. The five deputy or ‘mene’ lords were Lord Falmouth, Lord Edgcumbe, Sir Richard Vivian, Thomas Scawen, and Charles Courtenay, one of whom had to be chosen portreeve and returning officer. Admiral Edward Boscawen put the number of voters at 42, assigning 17 to Vivian, nine to Edgcumbe, six to Falmouth, three to Arundell, and seven to the other two deputy lords.
The dominant interest was in Lord Edgcumbe, and in 1754 and 1761 he returned two Treasury candidates. In June 1764, with Edgcumbe in opposition to the Grenville Administration, Thomas Pitt jun. was approached through his uncle, Charles Lyttelton, bishop of Carlisle, with the suggestion that he should try to re-establish his family interest at Lostwithiel. He replied in a letter of 16 June which the bishop sent on to Grenville:Grenville mss (JM).
In the first half of the eighteenth century the chief interest in the boroughs of East Looe and West Looe was in the Trelawnys. On the death of Governor Edward Trelawny in January 1754 the management and patronage of the two boroughs passed to his nephews the Bullers, while his cousin once removed, William Trelawny, ineffectively tried at times to reassert the Trelawny claim to them. In both boroughs the capital burgesses included, c. 1760, James, John and Francis Buller, and Charles and William Trelawny.For West Looe, list of 3 Oct.
See WEST LOOE (1754-90 Section).
The borough interest was in Edward Eliot, but his hold was not as absolute as at St. Germans. Thomas Jones, Lord Edgcumbe’s agent, wrote in June 1760: ‘Mr. Eliot rules there at present, though probably his interest is not so firmly established as to be impregnable from every quarter.’Add. 32907, ff. 461-2. Still, nothing more about the alleged vulnerability of Eliot’s interest appears during this period.
Thomas Jones, Lord Edgcumbe’s agent, wrote about Launceston in 1760:Add. 32907, ff. 361-2.
Mr. Morice’s interest seems at present the prevailing one in the borough for both Members. Sir John St. Aubyn hath many friends in the town but in appearance he declines being further concerned. The Duke of Bedford hath also some friends there. A junction of those gentlemen might give Mr. Morice’s interest a great shock, if not entirely overturn it.
No determination about the right of election existed, and it was assumed to be in the corporation. This consisted of a mayor, four aldermen, and an unlimited number of freemen. The right to create freemen was assumed to be in the mayor and alderman. From 1754 to 1768 the Godolphin family, whose seat was five miles from Helston, had almost undisputed control over the borough. On the death of Francis, and Earl of Godolphin, in 1766, the interest at Helston passed to his grandson Francis, Marquess of Carmarthen.
The most permanent natural interest in the borough was in the Hawkins family, seated at Trewithen, two miles from Grampound; but during most of the period 1754-90 it was in abeyance. In 1754 Christopher Hawkins and Robert Andrews, auditor general of the duchy of Cornwall, controlled one seat, and Lord Edgcumbe the other. Two Government candidates were returned: Burrell on Edgcumbe’s, and Fanshawe on the Andrews-Hawkins interest; while St. Aubyn and Beauchamp were ‘proposed by the malcontents but without their knowledge’.Note on poll sheet in Hawkins mss.
The main interest at Fowey was in the families of Rashleigh and Edgcumbe: Fowey being a port, there was also a certain Government interest; and as it was a decaying port, candidates were welcomed who could bring ‘some kind of trade’ to it.Thomas Pitt’s survey of Cornish boroughs, 2 Aug. 1747, HMC Fortescue, i. 127. And George, 3rd Lord Edgcumbe, wrote to Newcastle, 26 June 1761, on the vacancy caused by his succeeding to the peerage, that agents were