desirable to glance at the subject of pocket boroughs in general. There
are no pocket boroughs or rotten boroughs now, and readers who have
bestowed no special attention on political or constitutional
developments, may be glad of some measure of illumination as to their
rise and their place in the representative system of England. An
impression formerly prevailed that the institution dated from the great
Revolution, but this, it will be easy to show, was a fallacy. It was
much older. On the other hand, the pocket-borough was never substituted
by the arbitrary action of the Crown for the open borough, although it
was the settled belief of many of the inhabitants of Tiverton that under
the provisions of that mighty instrument, Magna Carta, the right of
returning members had been inalienably secured to them, and the
circumstance that this right was in fact exercised by neighbouring
towns, like Barnstaple and Taunton, was considered proof that the local
potwallers, or potwallopers, were the victims of invidious and illegal
discrimination. “Magna Carta,” said Sir Edward Coke, “is such a fellow
that he will not fear an equal”; and if it had been true that open
voting in the boroughs had been promulgated as the law of the land after
Runnymede, it has been judicially determined that no departure from that
principle, brought about by the use of the Royal prerogative or by any
other means, would have been recognized as valid. The terms of Magna
Carta, however, do not countenance the view that the burgesses of any
given town became entitled at their own option to send deputies to
Parliament, or that universal suffrage was the rule. On the contrary,
Parliamentary representation had at that time no existence either in
theory or in practice. The Commons were simply tenants _in capite_ of
the Crown. After 1265, no doubt, elections began to be held, and many
little places were summoned to return members, who received salaries
from their constituencies in payment of their services. This charge
rendered the honour a costly burden, and Edward I., one of the wisest of
our princes, varied the direction of the writs so as to distribute the
maintenance of the new third estate over as wide an area as possible.
The towns themselves did not greatly value the franchise, and, in many
instances, petitioned to be relieved of the dubious privilege. It seems
unquestionable that the mere receipt of an occasional summons did not
create or confirm any inherent or indefeasible right of unbroken
representation, nor do we meet with any attempt to institute such a
system until the days of the Reformation, when a new spirit invaded the
country and the Commons, as a branch of the Legislature, made rapid
strides in numbers and importance.
Then it was that the lawyers of the Inns of Court, many of them Puritan
in sympathy, disinterred the ancient records, and, on the strength of
one or two summonses, insisted that such demesne towns, some mere
villages, were boroughs by prescription, and as such possessed the right
to send representatives to Parliament for all time. The consequence was
that about thirty towns, in which great men at Court had an interest,
resumed their lapsed privileges, and by the reign of Queen Elizabeth the
Lower House had received an accession of sixty fresh members. This seems
to have been brought about in the first instance by the sheriffs sending
precepts to the places in question, and although in the thirteenth year
of Elizabeth a debate took place regarding the admission of members from
towns not hitherto represented, the practice was not seriously
challenged owing to the efficient patronage and protection of the
courtiers before named. In subsequent reigns the Commons themselves
proceeded to enlarge their body. James I., indeed, talked of reform, but
that pedantic monarch, far from checking the growth of the borough
system, was the very sovereign to whom Tiverton was indebted for its
charter.
The small borough, in the nature of things, tended to become a
pocket-borough. In the reign of Elizabeth the Earl of Leicester “owned”
the town of Andover; and the degree to which this form of property was
stretched is amusingly illustrated by the well-known story of Ann
Clifford, Countess of Pembroke, who lived in the days of the Merry
Monarch. The Secretary of State, Sir Joseph Williamson, had sent her a
letter in which he named a particular candidate for her borough of
Appleby. Incensed at this presumption, the haughty dame returned the
following reply: “I have been bullied by an usurper, I have been
neglected by a court, but I will not be dictated to by a subject. Your
man shan’t stand.”
The system, it goes without saying, lent itself to numberless kinds of
abuse. It has been stated that at one period a mistress of the King of
France acquired some borough, and that the Nabob of Arcot was able to
secure the return of seven or eight members, all pledged to his
interest. These assertions may be true or they may not, but the
possibility of such anomalies did not deter apologists from affirming
that the system was not by any means an unmixed evil.
A splendid senate, too, requires the gay ornamental parts, a sort of
shining plumage. The witty, the ingenious, the elegant, should be
represented. They were faithfully represented in our time by a
Sheridan, a Hare, a Fitzpatrick. Would a young adventurer, as Sheridan
was at his entrance in life, have attracted the eyes of the crowd?
Would the attic Hare or courtly Fitzpatrick have contended at a scene
like the Westminster election? We might have lost not only them, but
even the philosophic eloquence of Burke if all the returns were to
proceed from the crowd.—(George Moore, _History of the British
Revolution_, p. 341.)
This brief sketch will perhaps suffice as an explanation of the origin
and character of the borough system in general. Let us now turn to the
case of Tiverton in particular. As has been intimated, many of the
inhabitants believed that Tiverton was a borough by prescription, and
that accordingly the crown could not by its charter limit the right of
election to members of the corporate body alone. Naturally the evidence
relied on was that of State papers. An inquisition _post mortem_ a^o 51
Edw. III. sets out the extent and value of the manor and borough, from
which it appears that the two were distinct as to rents and services,
and that each had a separate court. By Letters Patent a^o 1 Edw. IV.,
the King grants the manor, borough and hundred to Humphry Stafford,
Knight, in special tail without any other description. These data are
obviously insufficient, and search was made at the Rolls Chapel from the
thirty-third year of Henry VIII., the year of the earliest return to
Parliament extant since the reign of Edward IV. The result was not
satisfactory to the enthusiasts who instituted the inquiry, the first
return discovered being that of 18 James I., when John Bamfylde and John
Davye, Esqrs., were returned by indenture dated the 20th December, by
the Mayor, capital burgesses, and assistants. It may be added that in
Prynne’s _Brevia Parliamentaria_ there occurs no mention of Tiverton,
which, on all these grounds, can hardly have been a borough in the sense
desired.
Tiverton, then, we may take it as certain, did not enjoy the right of
returning members until the thirteenth year of the reign of James I.,
when the Mayor, Capital Burgesses, Assistant Burgesses of the town and
parish, or the major part of them, were empowered to choose and nominate
two discreet and sufficient men to be burgesses of the Parliament. The
charter was renewed in the same terms in the fourth year of James II.,
and again in the reign of George II., so that we need feel no surprise
that, when the potwallopers from time to time threatened to assert their
supposed right, the members of the Common Council, assured of their
legal position, treated such vapourings with calm superiority. Until the
tidal wave of reform demolished the bulwarks of their monopoly, the
twenty-four were sole masters and arbiters. It was they who had the
right to decide who should sit in Parliament for the ancient town—they
and they alone. But how that right was exercised, if we except the bare
list of the Council’s nominees, there is for a long period no evidence
to show.
However, there was always material for a deal, and in the former half of
the eighteenth century Tiverton already figures as a political
tied-house. The overlordship afterwards acquired by the Ryder family was
then vested in a politician of some note, who in 1728 was one of the
representatives of Tiverton, though the Parliamentary connection of his
house with Honiton was even closer and of much longer standing, lasting,
indeed, from 1640 to 1796. We allude to Sir William Yonge. Martin
Dunsford, the first real historian of Tiverton, describes him as “a
popular man and closely attached to the minister, Sir Robert Walpole,”
adding that he “had great influence over the leading members of the
Corporation of Tiverton, and generally directed their choice of
burgesses.” The same writer, referring to Sir Edward Montague and
Charles Gore, Esquire, who in 1761 held one of the seats successively,
makes bold to assert that “there is reason to believe these members were
never in Tiverton, but bargained for their seats at a distance either
with Sir William Yonge or with Oliver Peard, Esq., the _primum mobile_,
of the Corporation.” With regard to the former, there is clearly some
misapprehension, as he had died in 1755, but the tradition that this
eminent Devonshire worthy was dictator at Tiverton must have rested on a
solid foundation. It behoves us, therefore, to render some further
account of him.
In the course of his successful career Sir William, who was the fourth
holder of the baronetcy, became one of the Lords of the Treasury, and on
the restoration of the order in 1725, was created a Knight of the Bath.
Subsequently he was appointed Secretary at War and Privy Councillor, and
over and above these political distinctions, was entitled to write after
his name the honourable symbols LL.D. and F.R.S. As Dunsford implies, he
was a great personal friend of Walpole, and his support was of
inestimable value to that statesman, “the glory of the Whigs.” Outside
the house he does not appear to have counted (save, of course, in
Devonshire), but inside, partly by reason of his high ability, and
partly on account of his voice, which is stated to have been peculiarly
melodious, his speeches were eagerly listened to. One curious fact
preserved concerning him is that Sir Robert could speak from notes taken
by Yonge, and by no other.
During the local supremacy of this statesman, and doubtless under his
auspices and sponsorship, there was introduced to the Corporation of
Tiverton a member of the Bar, Dudley Ryder, Esq., who in 1735 became
their representative. In 1741, the same gentleman, but now known as Sir
Dudley Ryder, Solicitor-General, was re-elected; and he continued to
hold the seat until 1754, when he was elevated to the great office of
Lord Chief Justice of the Queen’s Bench. Mr. Nathaniel Thomas Ryder
succeeded him, but only for a short time, after which Mr. Nathaniel
Ryder occupied the seat, and remained one of the members till, in 1776,
he was called to the House of Lords by the title of Baron Harrowby. As
the Hon. Dudley Ryder was still an infant, Mr. John Wilmot was permitted
to fill the vacancy, but on the clear understanding that he would at the
proper time make way for Lord Harrowby’s son and heir. This condition
was eventually carried out in the most honourable manner, and, on the
part of Lord Harrowby, with a patriotic regard for the public interests.
Thus, little by little and step by step, the Ryders firmly consolidated
their political influence in the town, and though only one of the seats
was claimed for a member of the family, the other seat also was
evidently at their disposal. This for a long series of years was
entrusted to the Duntzes, rich merchants of Exeter, who became baronets.
Apart from politics, the Ryders had no connection with Devonshire, which
they seldom visited, but Sir John Duntze, living at Rockbeare, and a
member of the Tiverton Corporation, was able to keep a watchful eye on
the local barometer, of whose subtle changes he (and most of his
colleagues) kept Lord Harrowby sedulously and punctually informed
through the post. On the other hand, poor Duntze, a perfect martyr to
rheumatism, experienced, owing to the exposure of the long journey by
coach, considerable difficulty in attending to his Parliamentary duties,
and for practical purposes Lord Harrowby, or his nominee, was the London
agent of the Tiverton Corporation. From the point of view of convenience
no arrangement could have been happier.
The above remarks apply to the first Lord Harrowby and the first Sir
John Duntze. The second Lord Harrowby, after a distinguished official
career, was advanced to the dignity of an earldom, and locally much
regret was expressed that he did not take his second title from the town
so long represented by his grandfather, his father, and himself. Had
this been the case, the present Lord Chancellor, whose eldest son enjoys
the courtesy title of Viscount Tiverton, must have looked elsewhere for
a subsidiary territorial designation. The second Sir John Duntze lived
at Tiverton in a large house, which he either erected or restored for
himself in the centre of the town; and an old man named Court, who is
still alive, but almost totally blind, told me a year or two since of a
lively incident which he can remember as taking place in front of the
floridly decorated mansion. The potwallopers of the place, he said,
organized a torchlight procession, the principal feature of which was a
cavalcade of four-and-twenty bedizened donkeys. The point could not be
missed. The asses were aggressively emblematic of the “corporators,” and
their riders of the family of which Lord Harrowby was the head.
In 1832, the Parliamentary connection ended with the passage of the
Reform Bill. The alliance had always been with the Corporation rather
than with the town, although many of the inhabitants, directly and
indirectly, had been repeatedly benefited by the generous consideration
of Lord Harrowby and his relations. There was, however, in the town a
strong body of malcontents numerous enough to carry their point, and a
potent counter-attraction had arisen in the person of Mr. John
Heathcoat, a resident manufacturer, whom his opponents derisively styled
“Lord Tiverton.” In view of these facts, Lord Harrowby’s friends felt it
their duty to notify him that no member or adherent of his family would
stand a chance of being returned at the approaching open election. The
members of the Common Council, loyal to the end, refused the least
countenance or support to any of the new candidates until his lordship’s
wishes had been disclosed, but the day of their predominance was already
past. Politically, the game was up. Both Lord Harrowby and his brother,
the Hon. Richard Ryder, consented to remain members of the Corporation,
but three years later the “iron hand of Parliament,” as the Town Clerk
expressed it, “terminated the long continuance and interchange of
friendly communications.” At present the chief, if not the sole
surviving, link between the family of Ryder and Tiverton is the large
share of the ecclesiastical patronage of the borough still in the hands
of Lord Harrowby.
And now for the Ryder correspondence. The earliest letters appear to
date from the time when the Georgian lawyer was elevated to the bench
and the seat which he had occupied, no doubt to his immense advantage,
passed by inheritance to his son, then a young man fresh from college.
We have the very epistles written by the gentleman whom Dunsford so
grandly names “the _primum mobile_ of the Corporation,” congratulating
him on taking his master’s degree and absolving him from the unnecessary
trouble of a journey to the south in order to attend his cut-and-dried
election. A letter from Mr. Osmond acquaints him with the departure from
the town of a “pretty partner” whose lively manners had enhanced the
enjoyment of a visit, whilst the member for Tiverton was yet a callow
bachelor. Eight years later Mr. Ryder had joined the noble army of
Benedicks, and then we find Mrs. Peard afflicted with an unselfish
anxiety to gratify his lady with a fine collection of shells.
Such pleasing gifts were the regular accompaniment and sweetener of the
more serious transactions, the graver obligations which formed the
mainstay of the connection. On the part of the members there was the
annual present of a pair of bucks for the municipal banquet, and one of
the oddest passages in this vast epistolary jungle is to be found in a
letter of Sir John Duntze, in which he informs his colleague that a
member of the Corporation, on bad terms with another member, announced
as the ostensible cause of the quarrel, that he had been improperly
helped to venison on the occasion of this important festival. Allusions
to the subject are so frequent and unctuous, that one is tempted to
conclude that in those gay, convivial days the yearly consignment of
venison was a more considerable factor in the case than we should now
deem possible. Thus, Mr. Mayor observes, with the distinctive air of a
man of the world:—
We had on Thursday the Grand Dinner, when ninety-four gentlemen dined
with me, amongst whom was Sir Rich. Bampfylde and Mr. Ackland, eldest
son of Sir Thos. Ackland, who is going to be married to Sir Rich^d’s
second daughter, a most amiable lady. This is a very great alliance
for Sir Richard Bampfylde’s family, and will be the means of keeping
everything quiet in the county.
This brings us to the topic of the social status of the Corporation,
which was comparatively high. Its critics, indeed, complained that it
included attornies, “very improper persons to be elected”; and the
members were frequently laughed at for “having Mayors in trade.” In
reply to this heavy indictment it was alleged by one of their number
that at least twenty-two out of the twenty-four had landed property
either in the town or in the parish. This was in 1831. In the reign of
William and Mary the “burgesses” are described some as esquires, others
as merchants, and one or two as yeomen; and this standard, there is
reason to think, was consistently maintained. Tiverton, it may be well
to say, was for centuries an important centre of the woollen trade.
Instead of one big factory, as now, for the production of lace, there
were many modest firms engaged in the manufacture and sale of serges,
etc., and consequently the Common Council was, above all things, the
valued preserve of families enriched by commerce, some of whom had
acquired all the attributes of gentle birth and breeding. Mr. Worth, of
Worth, and Mr. Cruwys, of Cruwys Morchard, belonged to two of the oldest
families of Devon, and an ancestor of the former had sat in Parliament
for Tiverton in days when the choice of members was apparently free and
unfettered. With such the Ryders corresponded in the most genial,
unaffected, and friendly way, and, in their somewhat infrequent visits
to the place, were glad to accept their hospitality. They would, for
instance, occasionally stay with Mr. Dickinson, of Knightshayes, an
ancestor of the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Sir W. H.
Walrond), and once, at least, Air. George Owen, of Lowman Green, was
honoured by a surprise visit from the younger nobleman.
In the year 1808, this second Lord Harrowby condescended to be Mayor—a
concession which resulted in a somewhat diverting misconception. It
appears that a Barnstaple correspondent, interested in the working of
the mails, had written to him in the belief that he was a “common or
garden” mayor—a plain Mr. Mayor. His consternation on learning the truth
does not need to be imagined, for he has pictured it himself:—
I was much mortified at my ignorance at the receipt of your Lordship’s
letter, for which I beg to apologize. Far from having the least idea
that the Corporation of Tiverton was so highly respected and had the
Honor of a Nobleman of your Lordship’s High Rank for Mayor, I
naturally concluded it to be an open borough like Barnstaple.
Lord Harrowby was coached for the inaugural ceremonies by the cousins
Wood, the elder of whom, Mr. Beavis Wood, who long filled the office of
Town Clerk, was by far the shrewdest of the Ryders’ multitudinous
correspondents. Even now his clever, incisive letters, lit up with many
a happy jest, are a pleasure to peruse, and neither in his earlier nor
in his later ones was he inclined to spare the feelings and
eccentricities of those with whom his lot was cast. Thus, on August 5th,
1808, he writes:—
The Mayor now again produced your Lordship’s Letter, desiring to know
the answer they might [deem?] it proper for him to give to it, when
they unanimously acknowledged your Lordship’s kind offer, and gladly
consented to embrace it, and elect you Mayor for the ensuing year. The
Business being unanimous, to be sure on that account from such an
offer it must be pleasant; but those assembled on this occasion did
not look like _old Christians_ in old Times at previous meetings on
such occasions. Twelve o’clock by Day is always a dull, dry time, when
old Tiverton aldermen never met to do chearful Business, as they could
not fix their Nominee by drinking his Health. Father Tucker gave the
Company a Hint of it, but it had no effect. I suppose as those of the
Junta are now under pantile Influence, and have turned their Backs on
our Lord Bishop, they will leave off drinking wine, unless when quite
by themselves.
_Tempora mutantur._ Of the old times and the old Christians Mr. Wood had
told Lord Harrowby not a few entertaining stories, which are still
preserved in his faded but excellent handwriting. Possibly at some
future date they may be printed for the benefit of students of human
nature, together with extracts from other correspondence, but with one
more specimen of his admirable humour this paper must be brought to a
close.
Sept. 17, 1775.
This afternoon according to the usual Custom the Corporation attended
the new Mayor to Church, but before the Procession moved from the Town
House, there happened a very unseasonable altercation and Dispute
between Mr. Osmond, Mr. Mayor, and Mr. Lewis about the priority of
reading the newspapers which are sent here directed to you. For since
the late spite commenced, and almost during the whole of Mr. Lewis’s
Mayoralty, care has been taken to prevent the newspapers coming to Mr.
Osmond’s hands, and they have been sent about to persons out of the
Corporation. Words grew high and rough, and this mad Trio did not end
’till each had called the other a damned Liar. Mr. Atherton[28] was
present, and being met to go to church, the Magistrates recollected
themselves, and after their return from prayers they looked at one
another as quietly as if nothing had happened.
-----
Footnote 28:
The Rev. Philip Atherton, M.A., Headmaster of Blundell’s School, and a
member of the Corporation.
-----
INDEX
Abbey of St. Rumon, Tavistock, 5, 73.
Abbot of Buckfast, former town house of, 68.
Abbot of Tavistock, Aldred, 118.
” ” Banham, John, 119.
” ” Campbell, John, 118.
” ” Chubbe, John, 118.
” ” Cullyng, Thomas, 118.
” ” de Courtenay, John, 118.
” ” Denyngton, John, 119.
” ” Langdon, Stephen, 119.
” ” Lyfing, 118.
” ” Peryn, John, 119.
Abbot Sithric, last Saxon Abbot of Tavistock, 8.
Adelaide, Queen, at “Clarence,” Exeter, 76.
Adye, Rev. Frederick, Romance of, 203.
Albemarle, George Monk, Duke of, 133.
Alexander, Plans of Mr. David, 201.
Alfred the Great, Relief of Exeter by, 4.
Amicia, Countess of Devon, 48.
Ancient Cathedral of Cornwall, 177.
Annals of Chagford, 10.
Apollo Room, New Inn, Exeter, 67-69.
Archbishop of Canterbury, William Courtenay, 50.
Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Temple, 60.
Armada, Coming of the, 93.
” Fight with the, 92.
Arms of Sir George Treby, Plympton Guildhall, 195.
Arundel, Sir Humphrey, 11, 82, 83.
Asser, Saxon Chronicle of, 4.
Athelstan, Charter to Barnstaple from King, 276.
” Drives Britons out of Exeter, 3.
Athos, Founder of illustrious family, 34.
Attack on Pensaulcoit, 3.
Babb, Lieutenant Colonel, 261.
” ” ” Tablet of, 262.
Babbage, Charles, famous mathematician, 166.
Babbage, Miss Juliana, 166.
Ball, Barnstaple Fair, 281.
Barclay, Alexander, “Stultifera Navis” of, 211.
Barnstaple Borough, 295.
” ” Charter to, 276.
” ” records, 278.
” Fair, 276, 281, 284.
” poem on, 282.
” Guildhall, 280.
” Quay Hall, 280.
Baronet, First Devonshire, 71.
Baskerville, Sir Simon, Mural tablet of, 65.
Bastard, Mr. William, of Kitley, 255.
Battle of Stratton, 105.
” ” Steinkirk, 113.
“Bear Inn,” The, Exeter, 73.
Bearne, Story of Miss Joan, 175.
Beaufort, Duke of, 256.
Beer, Harbour construction at, 274.
” birthplace of Jack Rattenbury, 264.
” return to, of Jack Rattenbury, 268, 269.
” to Thorverton Canal, 274.
Bercle, David, Prior of Plympton, 186.
Berry Pomeroy, Sir Edward Seymour of, 71.
Bideford, Importance of, 9.
Bishop of Exeter, Peter Courtenay, 56.
Black Prince, Relations of Exeter with the, 8.
Blake, Admiral, Death of, 95.
” ” Pursuit of Van Tromp, 112.
Blewitt, account of the landing of the Prince of Orange, 161–163.
Blewitt, “Panorama of Torquay,” 172.
“Bob’s Nose” headland, 273.
Boger, Mr. Deeble, Recorder of Plympton, 192.
Bompas, cross-examination by Mr. Sergeant, 275.
Bonville, Lady Cicely, 210.
Bray, Mrs., description of Druidic remains, 2.
Bray, Mrs., Local tales of, 116.
“Brevia Parliamentaria,” Prynne’s, 287.
British Revolution, George Moore’s History of the, 287.
Brooke, Christopher, 123.
Browne, William, Tavistock poet, 117–212.
Brutus, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24.
” Stone, 24.
Brut, Tysilio, 23.
” Gr. ab Arthur, 23.
Buller, Francis, puisne judge, 214.
Burnet, Dr., proclamation of the Prince of Orange, 17, 174.
Burritt, reminiscences of Elihu, 94.
Butler, Samuel, caricaturist in verse, 218.