Commons 1690-1715

Derby was a prosperous town, noted in 1701 for its newly built houses. Its chief trading interests were lead, tin and malt, a fact reflected in the borough’s petitions to Parliament for private legislation to make the Derwent navigable to the Trent with the aim of cutting the transport costs of these bulky items. The navigation project produced a consensus in the town, but was opposed by various landowners and hence became an issue in county elections, not least because of the large number of freeholders resident in the borough.Add. 47057, f. 105; CJ, xi. 449; xiii. 509; xiv.

The leading magnates in Derbyshire, the Cavendish earls and dukes of Devonshire, had been lord lieutenants for most of the 17th century and regained the post after 1688. However, they were not the only resident members of the aristocracy as the Earl (from 1703 Duke) of Rutland (John Manners†) and Earl of Scarsdale also lived on their Derbyshire estates. Many more peers had estates in the county including the Duke of Newcastle (John Holles†) and the earls of Chesterfield and Stanhope.

Electoral conflict at Cockermouth revolved around the rivalry among the Duke of Somerset, the Whartons and the neighbouring gentry. The interest of the 6th Duke of Somerset stemmed from his possession of the lordship of the manor, gained in 1682 by his marriage to the heir of the Percy earls of Northumberland.

The main electoral interests at Carlisle, a garrison town since the 11th century and incorporated in the 13th century, were the corporation and the governor of the castle, though the borough’s cathedral also conferred some influence upon the diocesan hierarchy, an interest utilized throughout the period by William Nicolson, first as archdeacon and later as bishop.

That Cumberland experienced only one contested election during this period is suggestive of a degree of electoral calm which in fact only existed during the 1690s, as canvassing became intense from 1700 onwards. Numerous families took a keen interest in, and exerted a significant influence upon, shire elections, and it is possible to attribute party identities to the leading players in county politics.

Truro was the centre of the Cornish tin industry and the seat of the stannary courts. Celia Fiennes thought it second only in importance to Launceston and Browne Willis* commented on its ‘great inland trade’, which redounded to the benefit of the corporation. Despite the claims of the freemen, Truro was a corporation borough much influenced by local families. Chief among these were the Boscawens, whose seat at Tregothnan lay a short distance down the River Fal, and the Vincents of Trelavan, five miles from St. Austell.

Defoe described Tregony as: ‘a town of very little trade . . . but what is carried on under the merchants of Falmouth, or Truro; the chief thing to be said of this town is that it sends Members to Parliament’. Browne Willis* concurred, noting it was ‘a poor market town’. The most important interest was that of Hugh Boscawen I*, recorder and lord of the manor, but the Trevanions of nearby Carhayes also had an influence.Defoe, Tour ed. Cole, 239; Bodl. Willis 5, ff. 144, 156.

The right of election at Saltash was in the holders of the local burgages and in the corporation, whose members had to be burgage holders in the borough. The chief interests were those of two neighbouring landowners: the Bullers, tenants in chief under the duchy of Cornwall, and the Carews of Antony, who together owned most of the burgages. Both families suffered minorities during this period, making it difficult to determine which person exercised the predominant interest.

A borough by prescription, St. Mawes was described by Browne Willis* as ‘a small hamlet’ whose inhabitants depended on the fishing trade. The dominant interest was that the Tredenham family, who, as lords of the manor, appointed the portreeve (sometimes called mayor), who was the returning officer. The Court was able to exercise some influence through its nomination of the captain of the castle, a post worth £80 p.a.Ibid. 166–8.

At the beginning of the period the principal interests at St. Ives were those of the Praeds of Trevethoe, a local family who held two of the lesser manors and who assiduously treated the voters, and Sir John Maynard*, who had taken over the Nosworthy interest in the impropriation of the local church and with it the great tithes on pilchards and herrings, which could be manipulated for political purposes. The Powletts, dukes of Bolton, were lords of the principal manor of Ludgvan Lese and as such received an annual rent from the corporation.