Go To Section
Andover
Double Member Borough
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Background Information
Right of Election:
in the corporation
Number of voters:
24
Elections
Date | Candidate | Votes |
---|---|---|
16 Apr. 1754 | John Griffin Griffin | |
Francis Blake Delaval | ||
30 Mar. 17611 | Sir John Griffin Griffin | 19 |
Sir Francis Blake Delaval | 12 | |
Benjamin Lethieullier | 5 | |
21 Mar. 1768 | Sir John Griffin Griffin | 17 |
Benjamin Lethieullier | 15 | |
Sir Francis Blake Delaval | 9 | |
5 Oct. 1774 | Benjamin Lethieullier | 18 |
Sir John Griffin Griffin | 13 | |
John Pollen | 7 | |
8 Sept. 1780 | Sir John Griffin Griffin | |
Banjamin Lethieullier | ||
30 Mar. 1784 | Sir John Griffin Griffin | |
Benjamin Lethieullier | ||
11 Aug. 1784 | William Fellowes vice Griffin, called to the Upper House |
Main Article
The chief parliamentary interest was in the Earl of Portsmouth, whose seat at Hurstbourne was five miles from the borough: John Griffin Griffin, whose aunt was married to the 1st Earl, sat on his interest; and after him, William Fellowes, whose sister was married to the 2nd Earl. But when in September 1760 Francis Blake Delaval tried through Newcastle for a juncture with Griffin, Portsmouth replied:2
When I recommended Major-General Griffin to my friends at Andover I promised them that I would not interfere farther in the election, so that your Grace sees the impossibility of my serving Mr. Delaval.
Another interest gradually became established in the borough: that of Joshua Iremonger of Wherwell (3½ miles from Andover). Matthew Fetherstonhaugh, married to a half-sister of Iremonger and sister of Benjamin Lethieullier, in 1754 unsuccessfully tried to secure a seat at Andover, and apparently declined the poll; but Lethieullier in 1768 ousted Delaval though supported by the Duke of Northumberland, who also had influence in the borough. John Pollen, defeated in 1774, was a local candidate; his father had represented the borough 1734-54. ‘I am told’, wrote John Robinson in his survey for the general election of 1780, ‘that Sir John Griffin does not stand well there, and is open to attack by a proper man.’ But the hold of the two dominant interests on the borough remained unchallenged to the end of this period. A letter from Elizabeth Iremonger to her friend Mary Heber, 13 Dec. 1790, prettily sums up the position:3
The Andover ball ... was confined entirely to the two families who support an interest there, Lord Portsmouth’s and my father’s, and the town of Andover. Little indeed therefore is there to relate but that the corporation was gratified and in good humour.