Go To Section
West Looe
Borough
Available from Boydell and Brewer
Background Information
Right of Election:
in the freemen
Number of voters:
about 70
Population:
(1801): 376
Elections
Date | Candidate |
---|---|
21 June 1790 | SIR JOHN WILLIAM DE LA POLE, Bt. |
JOHN PARDOE | |
30 May 1796 | JOHN BULLER II |
SITWELL SITWELL | |
22 Nov. 1796 | JOHN HOOKHAM FRERE vice Buller, vacated his seat |
7 July 1802 | JAMES BULLER II |
THOMAS SMITH | |
21 Dec. 1803 | QUINTIN DICK vice Smith, vacated his seat |
23 Jan. 1805 | RALPH ALLEN DANIELL vice Buller, vacated his seat |
1 Nov. 1806 | JAMES BULLER II |
RALPH ALLEN DANIELL | |
17 Apr. 1807 | BULLER re-elected after appointment to office |
8 May 1807 | JAMES BULLER II |
RALPH ALLEN DANIELL | |
17 Jan. 1812 | SIR JOSEPH SYDNEY YORKE vice Buller, appointed to office |
10 Oct. 1812 | CHARLES BULLER |
ANTHONY BULLER | |
11 Mar. 1816 | HENRY WILLIAM FITZGERALD de ROS vice Charles Buller, vacated his seat |
CHARLES HULSE vice Anthony Buller, appointed to office | |
19 June 1818 | (SIR) CHARLES HULSE, Bt. |
HENRY GOULBURN |
Main Article
The Bullers of Morval remained in uncontested control of West Looe throughout the period. John Buller† (d.1793) continued his policy of selling the seats to friends of administration in 1790. His son John, who inherited the patronage, was all set to do the same in 1796; John Hookham Frere, reported his friend Canning in May, was to come in ‘at a very easy price, for a very easy seat in a Cornish borough’. But some difficulty arose which was not ironed out until September, and meanwhile the patron returned himself.1 In November he vacated his seat for Frere, who paid £2,000.
In December 1801 Pitt, although he was no longer prime minister, seems to have been confident that Buller would again return two friends of his, for he asked whether Frere (then in Lisbon) would like to come in again on ‘approximately the same terms as before’.2 Frere decided to give up the seat and Buller returned Thomas Smith together with his own brother James, who in 1807 took office under Portland. This pattern continued: Buller returned two other brothers, Charles and Anthony, and two connexions by marriage (Yorke and Hulse), but continued to find room for friends of administration when applied to by them. The arrangement met with no opposition in the borough until 1822, when the right of the inhabitant householders was espoused and that of the non-resident freemen challenged. Signatories of the indentures of return fell steadily in number from 40 in 1790 to 22 in 1818.3