Worcestershire

County

Published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1715-1754, ed. R. Sedgwick, 1970
Available from Boydell and Brewer

Background Information

Number of voters:

about 4,000

Elections

DateCandidateVotes
2 Feb. 1715SIR JOHN PAKINGTON1970
 THOMAS VERNON1802
 Samuel Pytts1676
6 Mar. 1721SIR THOMAS LYTTELTON vice Vernon, deceased 
6 Apr. 1722SIR THOMAS LYTTELTON 
 SIR JOHN PAKINGTON 
7 June 1727LYTTELTON re-elected after appointment to office 
30 Aug. 1727SIR THOMAS LYTTELTON 
 SIR HERBERT PERROTT PAKINGTON 
1 May 1734SIR HERBERT PERROTT PAKINGTON 
 EDMUND LECHMERE 
20 May 1741EDMUND LECHMERE2309
 EDMUND PYTTS2120
 Thomas Henry Coventry, Visct. Deerhurst1930
 George Lyttelton1412
8 July 1747GEORGE WILLIAM COVENTRY, Visct. Deerhurst 
 EDMUND PYTTS 
10 Apr. 1751JOHN BULKELEY COVENTRY vice Deerhurst, called to the Upper House 
26 Dec. 1753EDMUND PYTTS jun. vice Edmund Pytts, deceased 

Main Article

Under George I and George II the chief interests in Worcestershire were those of the 5th and 6th Earls of Coventry, lord lieutenants of the county, Whigs, and of the 1st and 2nd Lords Foley of Witley, Tories. After a contest in 1715, when one of the former Tory Members, Sir John Pakington, was returned, but the other, Samuel Pytts, was defeated by a Whig, the next two elections were compromised, each party taking one seat. In 1734 two Tories, Sir Herbert Pakington and Edmund Lechmere, were returned, the government candidate, Sir Thomas Lyttelton, giving up a week before the poll on account of lukewarm support from Lord Coventry, who had gone into opposition.1 In 1741 Lord Coventry and Sir Thomas Lyttelton put up their eldest sons, Lord Deerhurst and George Lyttleton, as opposition Whigs against Lechmere and another Tory, Edmund Pytts, the son of the former Member, supported by Lord Foley. In the words of George Lyttelton:

Never was greater expense than Lord Foley’s has been upon this occasion, and to do justice to our adversaries, never was there more industry, or better management. Lord Deerhurst’s diligence was equal to theirs, and his expense not much less, but he was not near so well served by his agents. To conclude, we are entirely routed, Lord Foley is master of the county.2

In 1747, when Lechmere refused to stand, Lord Coventry’s second son was returned unopposed with Pytts, their families continuing to share the representation till 1761.

Author: R. S. Lea

Notes

  • 1. M. Wyndham, Chrons. of 18th Cent. i. 31-39.
  • 2. Geo. Lyttelton to Wm. Pitt, 23 May 1741, Chatham mss.