Go To Section
Ludlow
Borough
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Background Information
Right of Election:
in the freemen
Number of voters:
under 500 in 1722 to about 730 in 1727
Elections
Date | Candidate | Votes |
---|---|---|
1 Feb. 1715 | FRANCIS HERBERT | 183 |
HUMPHREY WALCOT | 171 | |
Acton Baldwyn | 81 | |
26 Mar. 1719 | SIR ROBERT RAYMOND vice Herbert, deceased | |
21 May 1720 | RAYMOND re-elected after appointment to office | |
28 Mar. 1722 | ABEL KETELBY | 325 |
ACTON BALDWYN | 350 | |
Humphrey Walcot | 200 | |
11 Feb. 1727 | RICHARD HERBERT vice Baldwyn, deceased | |
1 Sept. 1727 | HENRY ARTHUR HERBERT | 440 |
RICHARD HERBERT | 438 | |
William Hall | 296 | |
Edmund Pytts | 232 | |
25 Apr. 1734 | HENRY ARTHUR HERBERT | |
RICHARD HERBERT | ||
4 May 1741 | SIR WILLIAM CORBET | |
HENRY ARTHUR HERBERT | ||
30 Dec. 1743 | RICHARD HERBERT, vice Henry Arthur Herbert, called to the Upper House | |
30 Oct. 1745 | HERBERT re-elected after appointment to office | |
29 June 1747 | SIR WILLIAM CORBET | |
RICHARD HERBERT | ||
21 May 1748 | CORBET re-elected after appointment to office | |
7 Dec. 1748 | HENRY BRIDGEMAN vice Corbet, deceased |
Main Article
From 1688 and until 1727 there was no predominant interest at Ludlow, which normally chose its representatives from among the neighbouring landowners, notably the Herberts of Oakley, the Baldwyns of Stokesay, and the Walcots of Bitterley and Walcot. The Duke of Chandos also had an interest through his close connexion with Humphrey Walcot as well as from his purchase of the Bishop’s Castle estate. Chandos was mainly responsible for procuring the return in 1719 of Sir Robert Raymond,1 the only non-local Member elected during the period; but in 1722 he withdrew Raymond for fear of prejudicing the return of Walcot, who in the event was defeated by the new recorder of the borough, Abel Ketelby.
All this was changed by H. A. Herbert, created Earl of Powis 1748, who in 1727 secured the return of himself and his brother, Richard, after a contest, thenceforth nominating both Members without opposition. His success was due to his skill in managing the corporation and in mobilizing the out-voters, a factor reflected in the increased poll of 1727.2 He is said to have spent £20-£30,000 on the borough over a period of 20 years.3 In the 2nd Lord Egmont’s electoral survey, c.1749-50, Ludlow is noted as ‘totally in Lord Powis’.