Ilchester (UK Parliament constituency)
| Ilchester | |
|---|---|
| Former borough constituency for the House of Commons | |
| 1621–1832 |
Ilchester was a
History
The constituency was a
Ilchester was a "potwalloper" borough, meaning that the right to vote was exercised by all inhabitant householders not receiving alms (a household being theoretically defined by having a separate hearth on which a pot could be boiled); in the 18th century this amounted to a couple of hundred voters, who expected to receive full value in return for their votes, either at the time of election or later. This meant that elections were generally contested, and securing a seat was an expensive business. Bribery was widespread, and most of the elections at the start of the 18th century resulted in petitions by the losing candidates which the Commons had to investigate. Oldfield reports that the price of a vote was 2 guineas in 1702, but had risen to 30 guineas by 1768.
In 1702 one of the candidates at the previous year's election, John Webb, was arrested and committed to the custody of the sergeant at arms for bribery, as was the bailiff who (as returning officer) had asked for a £100 bribe to declare a candidate elected even if he had fewer votes than his opponents. A petition in 1709 stated that the sitting members had ordered two thousand pairs of shoes to keep all the shoemakers of the borough employed, although this petition was later withdrawn.
At the 1774 election a petition from the defeated candidates alleged bribery and treating against the sitting members as well as partiality by the returning officer and, after investigation, the Commons declared the election void[1] and a writ for a new election was issued. (This indicated that they considered the petitioners as guilty as their opponents, since the committee could otherwise have recommended to the House that they should be declared duly elected in the original poll.)
Even when there was no open scandal, considerable sums passed hands in Ilchester elections. In his study of the 1754 election, Lewis Namier mentions the government's arrangements to secure the election of its candidates there. The Whig interests in the borough at this time were managed by one of the MPs, Thomas Lockyer, nicknamed "Snowball" for the way in which he accumulated money, and the government spent £1000 on securing the election of John Talbot as the other member.[2] It appears that Talbot was expected to produce £1000 of his own to purchase the seat, but whether this was in addition to the government's expenditure or merely to reimburse it is not clear. At around the same period Lord Chesterfield records in his Letters to His Son that he investigated buying him a seat in Parliament at Ilchester and was quoted a price of £1500.
At the turn of the 19th century, most of the property in the borough was bought by
Ilchester was abolished as a separate constituency by the
Members of Parliament
MPs 1298–1629
| Parliament | First member | Second member | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ilchester's right to return Members restored, 1621 | |||
| Parliament of 1621–1622 | Sir Richard Wynn | Arthur Jarvis | |
Happy Parliament (1624–1625)
|
Sir Richard Wynn | Nathaniel Tomkins Also elected for Christchurch In his place Edmund Waller | |
| Useless Parliament (1625) | Richard Wynn | Sir Robert Gorges | |
| Parliament of 1625–1626 | Sir William Beecher | Robert Caesar | |
| Parliament of 1628–1629 | Sir Robert Gorges | Sir Henry Berkeley | |
| No Parliament summoned 1629–1640 | |||
MPs 1640–1832
See also
Notes
- ^ Ilchester, The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1754-1790, ed. L. Namier, J. Brooke., 1964
- ^ Note 2, Page 200, Lewis Namier, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III (2nd edition – London: St Martin's Press, 1957)
- ^ The election of Hunt and Berkeley was declared void, but Hunt was re-elected
- ^ Egmont was also elected for Bridgwater, which he chose to represent, and never sat for Ilchester
- ^ On petition the election of 1774 was declared void for bribery, all the candidates being disqualified and a new writ issued
- ^ On petition, Harcourt was declared not to have been duly elected and his opponent, Johnstone, was seated in his place
- ^ On petition, the election of 1802 was declared void for bribery and treating by the candidates and a new writ was issued
- ^ On petition, Manners' election was declared void for bribery
- ^ On petition, the return of 1826 was amended, and Huntingtower and Tollemache declared duly returned in place of Sharp and Williams
References
- Robert Beatson, A Chronological Register of Both Houses of Parliament (London: Longman, Hurst, Res & Orme, 1807) [1]
- Michael Brock, The Great Reform Act (London: Hutchinson, 1973)
- D Brunton & D H Pennington, Members of the Long Parliament (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954)
- Cobbett's Parliamentary history of England, from the Norman Conquest in 1066 to the year 1803 (London: Thomas Hansard, 1808) [2]
- T. H. B. Oldfield, The Representative History of Great Britain and Ireland (London: Baldwin, Cradock & Joy, 1816)
- J Holladay Philbin, Parliamentary Representation 1832 – England and Wales (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965)
- Edward Porritt and Annie G Porritt, The Unreformed House of Commons (Cambridge University Press, 1903)
- Henry Stooks Smith, The Parliaments of England from 1715 to 1847, Volume 3 (London: Simpkin, Marshall & Co, 1850)
- Willis, Browne (1750). Notitia Parliamentaria, Part II: A Series or Lists of the Representatives in the several Parliaments held from the Reformation 1541, to the Restoration 1660 ... London. p. 1.