Double Member County
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Number of voters:
|2 May 1754||Sir Thomas Palmer|
|9 Apr. 1761||Sir Thomas Palmer|
|25 Mar. 1762||Sir Thomas Cave vice Smith, deceased|
|26 Dec. 1765||Sir John Palmer vice Sir Thomas Palmer, deceased|
|31 Mar. 1768||Sir Thomas Cave|
|Sir John Palmer|
|20 Oct. 1774||Sir John Palmer|
|12 Jan. 1775||John Peach Hungerford vice Noel, called to the Upper House||2717|
|14 Sept. 1780||John Peach Hungerford|
|22 Apr. 1784||John Peach Hungerford|
Although there were important aristocratic interests in Leicestershire, notably those of the Duke of Rutland and the Earls of Stamford, Huntingdon and Harborough, the county representation was almost completely dominated by the country gentlemen. Only one son of a peer sat for Leicestershire during this period: the other Members were all country gentlemen, and it was only in alliance with one of these that an aristocratic interest could be effective. But too overt aristocratic interference was resented: Pochin in 1775, though strongly supported by the Duke of Rutland, lost the election—probably Rutland’s support lost him more votes than it gained.
The Leicestershire Members were undistinguished: of the seven men who represented the county during this period only Sir Thomas Cave is known to have spoken in the House—and he only once.