Heytesbury

Borough

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1790-1820, ed. R. Thorne, 1986
Available from Boydell and Brewer

Background Information

Right of Election:

in burgage holders

Number of voters:

26

Population:

(1801): 1,072

Elections

DateCandidate
18 June 1790WILLIAM EDEN, Baron Auckland [I]
 WILLIAM PIERCE ASHE A 'COURT
22 Dec. 1790 MICHAEL ANGELO TAYLOR vice A ’Court vacated his seat
8 Mar. 1791 RICHARD BARRY, Earl of Barrymore [I], vice Taylor, chose to sit for Poole
22 Mar. 1793 CHARLES ROSE ELLIS vice Barrymore, deceased
28 May 1793 HENRY WELBORE AGAR, Visct. Clifden [I], vice Auckland, called to the Upper House
30 May 1796HENRY WELBORE AGAR, Visct. Clifden [I]
 SIR JOHN FLEMING LEICESTER, Bt.
22 Feb. 1802 WILLIAM WICKHAM vice Clifden, called to the Upper House
5 July 1802JOHN HAMILTON FITZMAURICE, Visct. Kirkwall
 CHARLES ABBOT
14 Dec. 1802 CHARLES MOORE vice Abbot, chose to sit for New Woodstock
4 Nov. 1806CHARLES ABBOT
 (SIR) WILLIAM PIERCE ASHE A 'COURT, Bt.
27 Jan. 1807 CHARLES MOORE and MICHAEL SYMES vice Abbot, chose to sit for Oxford University, and A ’Court vacated his seat
8 May 1807JAMES EDWARD HARRIS, Visct. FitzHarris
 CHARLES MOORE
21 Aug. 1807 FITZHARRIS re-elected after appointment to office
7 Oct. 1812HON. SAMUEL HOOD
 CHARLES DUNCOMBE
19 June 1818HON. GEORGE JAMES WELBORE AGAR ELLIS
 HON. WILLIAM HENRY JOHN SCOTT
24 June 1819 SCOTT re-elected after appointment to office

Main Article

At the beginning of this period William Pierce Ashe A ’Court owned 16 burgages at Heytesbury and the 4th Duke of Marlborough the other ten. These patrons had nominated a Member each since 1772. The borough remained close.1 Marlborough returned relatives and friends. A ’Court, a Portland Whig, returned himself only as a stopgap and took paying guests. Charles Rose Ellis paid him £3,500 ‘for the remainder of the Parliament’ in 1793; Viscount Kirkwall in 1802 and Viscount FitzHarris in 1807 each paid £4,600. Election expenses scarcely exceeded £100 In 1802 A ’Court refused an overture to seat a friend of the Prince of Wales for £4,500, and subsequently, according to his son, looked for the highest bidder.2

After the election of 1807 the Duke of Marlborough, whose quarrel with his heir had disposed him to make his Heytesbury property an appanage of his younger son Lord Francis Spencer*, was advised against doing so3 and resolved the problem by selling his moiety to A ’Court, who in 1812 returned both Members. On A ’Court’s death in 1817, his heir (Sir) William A ’Court* obtained legal advice as to whether he might put casual tenants of his own choice in the burgage houses. Serjeant Lens advised against this, and the usual practice of letting to local tenants, removable at pleasure, at a shilling a year was continued.4

Author: R. G. Thorne

Notes

  • 1. J. A. Cannon, ‘Borough of Heytesbury in the 18th Cent.’, Wilts. Arch. Mag. lvii. 223.
  • 2. Minto, ii. 123; Malmesbury mss, Malmesbury to FitzHarris, 29 Apr. 1807; Wilts. RO 635/53, election bills, 1784-1830; 490/1373, A’Court to Radnor, 13 June 1802; Pembroke mss, A’Court to Pembroke, 4 Mar. 1812.
  • 3. Add. 34460, f. 243.
  • 4. Wilts. RO 635/54, 55.