Double Member Borough
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Right of Election:
in the resident freemen
Number of voters:
less than 30
|19 Apr. 1754||Sir George Lee|
|19 May 1757||Morice re-elected after appointment to office|
|30 Dec. 1758||Sir John St. Aubyn vice Lee, deceased||15|
|Burrell vice St. Aubyn, on petition, 21 Feb. 1759|
|31 Mar. 1761||Humphry Morice|
|3 Jan. 1763||Morice re-elected after appointment to office|
|18 Mar. 1768||Humphry Morice|
|10 Oct. 1774||Humphry Morice||17|
|8 Sept. 1780||James Cecil, Visct. Cranborne|
|28 Nov. 1780||Charles George Perceval vice Cranborne, called to the Upper House|
|31 Jan. 1783||Sir John Jervis vice Bowlby, vacated his seat|
|3 Jan. 1784||Perceval re-elected after appointment to office|
|5 Apr. 1784||Charles George Perceval|
|18 June 1788||Sir John Edward Swinburne vice Rose, appointed to office|
Thomas Jones, Lord Edgcumbe’s agent, wrote about Launceston in 1760:1
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.
Morice had inherited the parliamentary interest at Launceston from his cousin Sir William Morice, M.P. for Launceston from 1734 till his death in January 1750.
At the general election of 1754 the Duke of Bedford challenged Morice’s interest at the adjacent borough of Newport, but did not interfere at Launceston. In October 1758 Lord Tylney, a relative of Bedford, approached Morice about a seat in Parliament; and Morice asked in return that Tylney would try to dissuade Bedford from giving him any further opposition at Newport or Launceston.2 ‘I did venture to tell him’, wrote Tylney, ‘I wondered he would not make a compromise. His answer was: “That is really not in my power if it was ever so much my inclination, I should lose my interest entirely by doing so.”’ Bedford’s unpopularity may have been due to the methods of his agent, John Butcher, thus described by Samuel Martin to Henry Pelham in a report on Camelford, 8 Oct. 1753:3 ‘I found by many concurrent accounts that Mr. Butcher hath laid it down as one rule to promise whatever shall be asked of him; and as another rule, equally inviolable, not to fulfil any one promise he should make.’
When a vacancy arose at Launceston through Sir George Lee’s death in September 1758, Morice had to face the opposition of Sir John St. Aubyn. There was now manoeuvring on Morice’s part from which it is not easy to disentangle the truth. On 19 Dec. he wrote to Newcastle:4
As your Grace seemed unwilling that Lord Tylney should represent the borough of Launceston ... I entirely laid aside all thoughts of it, although by making choice of his Lordship I have a prospect of settling matters for the future between the Duke of Bedford and me.
He would try to carry Newcastle’s candidate, Dr. Simpson, but doubted success. And next, 28 Dec.:
I sent Lord Tylney to Launceston as I told your Grace I proposed to do; but the people there are so averse to him upon account of his being related to the Duke of Bedford and the connexion they imagine to be between them, that it is impossible to get him chose, so he was prevented going further than Exeter.
But as there was strong opposition, and Simpson was not to be put to ‘uncertain expense’, he returned Peter Burrell, assuring him that he was Newcastle’s choice. The election was lost by one vote and Burrell seated only on petition.
Borough patrons were apt to screen themselves behind their electors when it suited them. But even in constituenc