Buckinghamshire | |
---|---|
Former county constituency for the House of Commons | |
1265–1885 | |
Seats | two |
Replaced by | Aylesbury, Buckingham and Wycombe |
Buckinghamshire is a former United Kingdom Parliamentary constituency. It was a constituency of the House of Commons of the Parliament of England then of the Parliament of Great Britain from 1707 to 1800 and of the Parliament of the United Kingdom from 1801 to 1885.
Its most prominent member was Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli.
Boundaries and boundary changes
[edit]This county constituency consisted of the historic county of Buckinghamshire, in south-eastern England to the north-west of the modern Greater London region. Its southern boundary was the River Thames. See History of Buckinghamshire for maps of the historic county and details about it.
The county returned two knights of the shire until 1832 and three 1832–1885. The place of election for the county was at the county town of Aylesbury. Aylesbury replaced Buckingham as the county town in 1529.
The county, up to 1885, also contained the borough constituencies of Amersham (originally enfranchised with 2 seats from 1300, revived 1625, disenfranchised 1832), Aylesbury (originally enfranchised with 2 seats from 1302, revived 1554), Buckingham (2 seats from 1529, 1 seat from 1868), Chipping Wycombe (2 seats from 1300, 1 seat from 1868), Great Marlow (2 seats 1625–1868, 1 seat from 1868) and Wendover (2 seats 1625–1832, disenfranchised 1832).
In 1885 the county was split into three single-member county divisions. These were Aylesbury, Buckingham and Wycombe.
Aylesbury, Buckingham, Chipping Wycombe and Great Marlow were disenfranchised as borough constituencies. There were no remaining Parliamentary boroughs in the county from 1885.
Members of Parliament
[edit]Preliminary note: The English civil year started on 25 March until 1752 (Scotland having changed to 1 January in 1600). The year used in the lists of Parliaments in this article have been converted to the new style where necessary. Old style dates would be a year earlier than the new style for days between 1 January and 24 March. No attempt has been made to compensate for the eleven days which did not occur in September 1752 in both England and Scotland as well as other British controlled territories (when the day after 2 September was 14 September), so as to bring the British Empire fully in line with the Gregorian calendar.
Constituency created (1265): See Simon de Montfort's Parliament for further details. Knights of the shire are known to have been summoned to most Parliaments from 1290 (19th Parliament of King Edward I of England) and to every one from 1320 (19th Parliament of King Edward II of England).
Knights of the shire 1290–1660
[edit]Knights of the shire 1660–1832
[edit]Knights of the shire 1832–1885
[edit]Elections
[edit]In multi-member elections the bloc voting system was used. Voters could cast a vote for one or two (or three in three-member elections 1832–1868) candidates, as they chose. The leading candidates with the largest number of votes were elected. In 1868 the limited vote was introduced, which restricted an individual elector to using one or two votes, in elections to fill three seats.
In by-elections, to fill a single seat, the first past the post system applied.
After 1832, when registration of voters was introduced, a turnout figure is given for contested elections. In three-member elections, when the exact number of participating voters is unknown, this is calculated by dividing the number of votes by three (to 1868) and two thereafter. To the extent that electors did not use all their votes this will be an underestimate of turnout.
Where a party had more than one candidate in one or both of a pair of successive elections change is calculated for each individual candidate, otherwise change is based on the party vote.
Candidates for whom no party has been identified are classified as Non Partisan. The candidate might have been associated with a party or faction in Parliament or consider himself to belong to a particular political tradition. Political parties before the 19th century were not as cohesive or organised as they later became. Contemporary commentators (even the reputed leaders of parties or factions) in the 18th century did not necessarily agree who the party supporters were. The traditional parties, which had arisen in the late 17th century, became increasingly irrelevant to politics in the 18th century (particularly after 1760), although for some contests in some constituencies party labels were still used. It was only towards the end of the century that party labels began to acquire some meaning again, although this process was by no means complete for several more generations.'
Sources: The results for elections 1660-1790 were taken from the History of Parliament Trust publications. The results are based on Stooks Smith from 1790 until the 1832 United Kingdom general election and Craig from 1832. Where Stooks Smith gives additional information after 1832 this is indicated in a note.
1660-70s – 1680-90s – 1700-10s – 1720-30s – 1740-50s – 1760-70s – 1780-90s – 1800-10s – 1820-30s – 1840-50s – 1860-80s |
Elections in the 1660-70s
[edit]Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | William Bowyer | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Thomas Tyrrell | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Appointment of Tyrrell as a Judge
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | William Tyringham | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan hold | Swing | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | William Bowyer | 1,499 | 27.58 | N/A | |
Non Partisan | William Tyringham | 1,379 | 25.37 | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Richard Hampden | 1,315 | 24.20 | N/A | |
Non Partisan | R. Winwood | 1,242 | 22.85 | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | John Hampden | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Thomas Wharton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Elections in the 1680-90s
[edit]Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | John Hampden | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Thomas Wharton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | Richard Hampden | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Thomas Wharton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | John Egerton | 2,430 | 44.66 | N/A | |
Whig | Thomas Wharton | 1,804 | 33.16 | N/A | |
Non Partisan | T. Hackett | 1,207 | 22.18 | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Thomas Lee | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Thomas Wharton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | Richard Hampden | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Thomas Wharton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Richard Atkins | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Thomas Wharton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Succession of Wharton as 5th Baron Wharton
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tory | William Cheyne | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Tory gain from Whig | Swing | N/A |
- Note (February 1696): The William Cheyne succeeded his father as the 2nd Viscount Newhaven, an Irish peerage, in 1698.
- Death of Atkins
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Henry Neale | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan hold | Swing | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tory | William Cheyne | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Goodwin Wharton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Elections in the 1700-10s
[edit]Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tory | William Cheyne | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Goodwin Wharton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Robert Dormer | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Goodwin Wharton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tory | William Cheyne | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Goodwin Wharton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Death of Wharton
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | Richard Temple | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig gain from Nonpartisan | Swing | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Robert Dormer | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Richard Temple | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Appointment of Dormer as a Justice of the Court of Common Pleas
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | William Egerton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan hold | Swing | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Edmund Denton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Richard Hampden | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Note (1708): Possible classification - Hampden (W)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Edmund Denton | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Tory | John Verney | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tory | John Verney | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan | John Fleetwood | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Note (1713): Possible classification - Fleetwood (T)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | John Fleetwood | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Richard Hampden | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Note (1715): Possible classification - Fleetwood (T), Hampden (W)
- Appointment of Hampden as a Teller of the Exchequer
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Richard Hampden | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan hold | Swing | N/A |
- Note (1716): Possible classification - Hampden (W)
- Appointment of Hampden as Treasurer of the Navy
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Richard Hampden | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan hold | Swing | N/A |
- Note (1717): Possible classification - Hampden (W)
Elections in the 1720-30s
[edit]Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Montague Garrard Drake | 2,441 | 37.21 | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Thomas Lee | 2,415 | 36.81 | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Fleetwood Dormer | 1,704 | 25.98 | N/A |
- Note (1722): Possible classification - Drake (T), Lee & Dormer (W)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Hon. William Stanhope | 2,310 | 39.39 | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Richard Hampden | 1,903 | 32.45 | N/A | |
Non Partisan | William Gore | 1,651 | 28.16 | N/A |
- Note (1727): Possible classification - Stanhope & Hampden (W), Gore (T)
- Death of Hampden
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Thomas Lee | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan hold | Swing | N/A |
- Note (1729): Possible classification - Lee (W)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | William Stanhope | 2,414 | 43.96 | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Thomas Lee | 1,763 | 32.11 | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Richard Lowndes | 1,314 | 23.93 | N/A |
- Note (1734): Possible classification - Stanhope & Lee (W), Lowndes (T)
Elections in the 1740-50s
[edit]Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | Richard Grenville | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Richard Lowndes | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Note (1741): Possible classification - Lowndes (T)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Richard Lowndes | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Hon. William Stanhope | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Note (1747): Possible classification - Lowndes (T), Stanhope (W)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Richard Lowndes | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan | William Stanhope | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Note (1754): Possible classification - Lowndes (T), Stanhope (W)
Elections in the 1760-70s
[edit]Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Richard Lowndes | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Hon. William Stanhope | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Note (1761): Possible classification - Lowndes (T), Stanhope (W)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Richard Lowndes | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Ralph Verney | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Note (1768): Possible classification - Lowndes (T)
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | George Grenville | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Ralph Verney | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Succession of Grenville as 3rd Earl Temple
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | Thomas Grenville | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig hold | Swing | N/A |
Elections in the 1780-90s
[edit]Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | Thomas Grenville | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Ralph Verney | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | William Grenville | 2,261 | 39.55 | N/A | |
Non Partisan | John Aubrey | 1,740 | 30.44 | N/A | |
Whig | Ralph Verney | 1,716 | 30.02 | N/A |
- Note (1784): Poll 13 days. 3,548 voted. Possible classification for Aubrey (T). (Source: Stooks Smith)
- An alternative interpretation is that Aubrey was a supporter of Pitt (who called himself a Whig, although retrospectively usually classified as a Tory). Aubrey had very clearly identified himself with the opposition to the Fox-North coalition. (Source: Davis)
- Appointment of Grenville as Secretary of State for the Home Department
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | William Grenville | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig hold | Swing | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tory | William Bentinck | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Ralph Verney | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Death of Verney
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | James Grenville | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Nonpartisan gain from Whig | Swing | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | James Grenville | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Tory | William Bentinck | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Resignation of Grenville
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Earl Temple | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan hold | Swing | N/A |
Elections in the 1800-10s
[edit]Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Earl Temple | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Tory | William Bentinck | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Note (1802): Identifying a definitive party label for Temple and Titchfield is difficult. Stooks Smith considered Temple a Tory and Titchfield a Whig, but he may not be reliable for Bucks candidates allegiances before about 1818. Both knights of the shire were members of traditional Whig families and were closely related to one or more Whig Prime Ministers. Temple was a member of the Grenville family, which had supported their cousin William Pitt the Younger during his first premiership 1783-1801. Former Bucks MP (and uncle of Earl Temple) William Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville had become closer to Charles James Fox and his faction of opposition Whigs since leaving office with Pitt in 1801. This may have affected the political position of his relatives like Earl Temple. Titchfield was the son of William Cavendish-Bentinck, 3rd Duke of Portland who had been the Whig Prime Minister of the Fox-North Coalition, in office before Pitt. However Portland had split his Whig faction and broken with the pre-eminent opposition Whig leader in the House of Commons, Charles James Fox, over the attitude to be taken to the French Revolution. Portland joined Pitt's cabinet in 1794. Pitt called himself a Whig, although his followers came from both traditional Whig and Tory families. Titchfield, when he was first elected for the county in 1791, had been brought forward as a candidate by the Buckinghamshire Independent Club. This club had supported the late Earl Verney, and were definitely a Whig organisation. At that time Titchfield's father was the leader of the largest Whig faction in opposition to Pitt's Ministry. However Davis does imply that Titchfield himself was a Tory, which is how he has been classified in this article. In the absence of a clear indication of whether Temple considered himself a Whig or Tory at this stage of his career, he has been classified as a Non Partisan member for this article.
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Earl Temple | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Tory | William Bentinck | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Note (1806): As for 1802 save that following Pitt's death William Wyndham Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville, who had not joined Pitt's second Ministry in 1804, become Prime Minister of the Ministry of All the Talents in 1806. This may have led the Grenvilles, in retrospect, to continue to be regarded as Whig when Pitt and other groups of his supporters came to be called Tory after Pitt's death.
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Earl Temple | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Tory | William Bentinck | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Note (1807): As before save that in 1807 the Duke of Portland had formed a Tory administration (although he claimed to be the Whig Prime Minister of a Tory Ministry). In retrospect Portland has been regarded as a Tory at the time of his second Ministry.
- Succession of Titchfield as 4th Duke of Portland
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | William Selby Lowndes | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Nonpartisan gain from Tory |
- Note (1810): Possible party for Selby Lowndes is Whig (source: Stooks Smith), but given his conservative religious views and support for Henry Addington, 1st Viscount Sidmouth's anti-dissenter policy it may be best to regard him as a member of a traditional Whig family who was moving towards being a nineteenth century Tory. He has been classified as Non Partisan for the purpose of this article.
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | William Selby Lowndes | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan | Earl Temple | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- Succession of Temple as 2nd Marquess of Buckingham
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | Thomas Grenville | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Non Partisan hold |
- Note (1813): Grenville was the uncle of the 2nd Marquess of Buckingham (formerly Earl Temple MP). The same factors noted for Temple lead to Thomas Grenville being classified as Non Partisan for the purpose of this article. Stooks Smith however classifies him as Tory and he was of the same generation as his brother William Grenville, 1st Baron Grenville classified by Stooks Smith as a Tory and in this article as a Whig.
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Non Partisan | William Selby Lowndes | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Tory | Earl Temple | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Elections in the 1820-30s
[edit]Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | Robert Smith | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Tory | Richard Temple-Grenville | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
- From 1822 Temple was known by the courtesy title of Marquess of Chandos, as his father was created 1st Duke of Buckingham and Chandos
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tory | Richard Temple-Grenville | Unopposed | N/A | N/A | |
Whig | Robert Smith | Unopposed | N/A | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tory | Richard Temple-Grenville | Unopposed | |||
Whig | Robert Smith | Unopposed | |||
Registered electors | c. 4,000 | ||||
Tory hold | |||||
Whig hold |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tory | Richard Temple-Grenville | 1,594 | 42.2 | ||
Whig | John Smith (Buckinghamshire MP) | 1,284 | 34.0 | ||
Whig | Pascoe Grenfell | 901 | 23.8 | ||
Turnout | 2,593 | c. 64.8 | |||
Registered electors | c. 4,000 | ||||
Majority | 310 | 8.2 | |||
Tory hold | |||||
Majority | 383 | 10.2 | |||
Whig hold |
- Note (1831): Chandos 1,287 plumpers, 287 split with Smith, 18 split with Grenfell; Smith 191 plumpers, 806 split with Grenfell; Grenfell 2 plumpers. Total voters 2,593. (Source: Davis). Poll: 4 days.[1]
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Tory | Richard Temple-Grenville | 2,856 | 33.8 | +12.7 | |
Whig | John Smith (Buckinghamshire MP) | 2,402 | 28.5 | −5.5 | |
Whig | George Dashwood | 1,647 | 19.5 | −4.3 | |
Tory | Charles Scott-Murray | 1,536 | 18.2 | −2.9 | |
Turnout | 4,189 | 78.9 | +14.1 | ||
Registered electors | 5,306 | ||||
Majority | 454 | 5.3 | −2.9 | ||
Tory hold | Swing | +8.8 | |||
Majority | 866 | 10.3 | +0.1 | ||
Whig hold | Swing | −5.2 | |||
Whig win (new seat) |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Richard Temple-Grenville | 3,094 | 28.9 | +11.6 | |
Conservative | William Young | 2,394 | 22.4 | +5.1 | |
Conservative | James Backwell Praed | 2,179 | 20.4 | +3.1 | |
Whig | George Dashwood | 1,672 | 15.6 | −12.9 | |
Whig | John Lee | 1,365 | 12.8 | −6.7 | |
Majority | 507 | 4.8 | −0.5 | ||
Turnout | 3,946 | 73.5 | −5.4 | ||
Registered electors | 5,371 | ||||
Conservative hold | Swing | +9.1 | |||
Conservative gain from Whig | Swing | +5.8 | |||
Conservative gain from Whig | Swing | +4.8 |
- Death of Praed
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | George Simon Harcourt | 2,233 | 69.5 | −2.2 | |
Whig | George Dashwood | 982 | 30.5 | +2.1 | |
Majority | 1,251 | 39.0 | +34.2 | ||
Turnout | 3,215 | 55.8 | −17.7 | ||
Registered electors | 5,760 | ||||
Conservative hold | Swing | −2.2 |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Richard Temple-Grenville | 2,993 | 28.8 | −0.1 | |
Conservative | George Simon Harcourt | 2,704 | 26.0 | +3.6 | |
Conservative | William Young | 2,633 | 25.3 | +4.9 | |
Whig | George Robert Smith | 2,071 | 19.9 | −8.5 | |
Majority | 562 | 5.4 | +0.6 | ||
Turnout | 4,464 | 77.5 | +4.0 | ||
Registered electors | 5,760 | ||||
Conservative hold | Swing | +1.4 | |||
Conservative hold | Swing | +3.2 | |||
Conservative hold | Swing | +3.9 |
- Succession of Chandos as 2nd Duke of Buckingham and Chandos
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Caledon Du Pré | Unopposed | |||
Conservative hold |
Elections in the 1840-50s
[edit]Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | William Young | 2,578 | 29.8 | +4.5 | |
Conservative | Caledon Du Pré | 2,572 | 29.8 | +1.0 | |
Conservative | Charles Scott-Murray | 2,547 | 29.5 | +3.5 | |
Whig | John Lee | 495 | 5.7 | −14.2 | |
Radical | Henry Morgan Vane | 450 | 5.2 | N/A | |
Majority | 2,052 | 23.7 | +18.3 | ||
Turnout | 3,071 | 49.9 | −27.6 | ||
Registered electors | 6,156 | ||||
Conservative hold | Swing | +4.6 | |||
Conservative hold | Swing | +2.9 | |||
Conservative hold | Swing | +4.2 |
- Death of Young
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | William Fitzmaurice | Unopposed | |||
Conservative hold |
- Resignation of Scott-Murray by accepting the office of Steward of the Manor of Hempholme
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Christopher Tower | Unopposed | |||
Conservative hold |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | Charles Cavendish | Unopposed | |||
Conservative | Benjamin Disraeli | Unopposed | |||
Conservative | Caledon Du Pré | Unopposed | |||
Registered electors | 5,798 | ||||
Whig gain from Conservative | |||||
Conservative hold | |||||
Conservative hold |
- Appointment of Disraeli as Chancellor of the Exchequer
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Benjamin Disraeli | Unopposed | |||
Conservative hold |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Caledon Du Pré | 2,000 | 33.2 | N/A | |
Conservative | Benjamin Disraeli | 1,973 | 32.7 | N/A | |
Whig | Charles Cavendish | 1,403 | 23.3 | N/A | |
Radical | John Lee[10] | 656 | 10.9 | N/A | |
Majority | 570 | 9.4 | N/A | ||
Turnout | 3,016 (est) | 53.3 (est) | N/A | ||
Registered electors | 5,659 | ||||
Conservative hold | Swing | N/A | |||
Conservative hold | Swing | N/A | |||
Whig hold | Swing | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | Charles Cavendish | Unopposed | |||
Conservative | Benjamin Disraeli | Unopposed | |||
Conservative | Caledon Du Pré | Unopposed | |||
Registered electors | 5,353 | ||||
Whig hold | |||||
Conservative hold | |||||
Conservative hold |
- Creation of Cavendish as 1st Baron Chesham
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Whig | William Cavendish | 1,617 | 52.7 | N/A | |
Conservative | Charles Baillie-Hamilton | 1,454 | 47.3 | N/A | |
Majority | 163 | 5.4 | N/A | ||
Turnout | 3,071 | 57.4 | N/A | ||
Registered electors | 5,353 | ||||
Whig hold | Swing | N/A |
- Appointment of Disraeli as Chancellor of the Exchequer
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Benjamin Disraeli | Unopposed | |||
Conservative hold |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Liberal | William Cavendish | Unopposed | |||
Conservative | Benjamin Disraeli | Unopposed | |||
Conservative | Caledon Du Pré | Unopposed | |||
Registered electors | 5,343 | ||||
Liberal hold | |||||
Conservative hold | |||||
Conservative hold |
Elections in the 1860-80s
[edit]- Succession of Cavendish as 2nd Baron Chesham
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Robert Harvey | 2,311 | 88.1 | N/A | |
Liberal | John Lee | 313 | 11.9 | N/A | |
Majority | 1,998 | 76.2 | N/A | ||
Turnout | 2,624 | 45.0 | N/A | ||
Registered electors | 5,836 | ||||
Conservative gain from Liberal | Swing | N/A |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Benjamin Disraeli | Unopposed | |||
Conservative | Caledon Du Pré | Unopposed | |||
Conservative | Robert Harvey | Unopposed | |||
Registered electors | 6,126 | ||||
Conservative hold | |||||
Conservative hold | |||||
Conservative gain from Liberal |
- Appointment of Disraeli as Chancellor of the Exchequer
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Benjamin Disraeli | Unopposed | |||
Conservative hold |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Benjamin Disraeli | Unopposed | |||
Conservative | Caledon Du Pré | Unopposed | |||
Liberal | Nathaniel Lambert | Unopposed | |||
Registered electors | 7,894 | ||||
Conservative hold | |||||
Conservative hold | |||||
Conservative hold |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Benjamin Disraeli | 2,999 | 38.6 | N/A | |
Conservative | Robert Harvey | 2,902 | 37.3 | N/A | |
Liberal | Nathaniel Lambert | 1,720 | 22.1 | N/A | |
Ind. Conservative | William Talley[11] | 151 | 1.9 | New | |
Turnout | 4,822 (est) | 65.4 (est) | N/A | ||
Registered electors | 7,368 | ||||
Conservative hold | Swing | N/A | |||
Conservative hold | Swing | N/A | |||
Majority | 1,182 | 15.2 | N/A | ||
Liberal hold | Swing | N/A | |||
Majority | 1,569 | 20.2 | N/A |
- Talley was a Slough solicitor who contested the seat as a "Progressive Conservative". (Source: Davis)
- Appointment of Disraeli as Prime Minister and First Lord of the Treasury
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Benjamin Disraeli | Unopposed | |||
Conservative hold |
- Creation of Disraeli as 1st Earl of Beaconsfield
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Thomas Fremantle | 2,725 | 51.8 | −24.1 | |
Liberal | Rupert Carington | 2,539 | 48.2 | +26.1 | |
Majority | 186 | 3.5 | −11.7 | ||
Turnout | 5,264 | 72.4 | +7.0 | ||
Registered electors | 7,273 | ||||
Conservative hold | Swing | −25.1 |
Party | Candidate | Votes | % | ±% | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Conservative | Robert Harvey | 2,956 | 31.7 | −5.6 | |
Conservative | Thomas Fremantle | 2,790 | 29.9 | −8.7 | |
Liberal | Rupert Carington | 2,790 | 29.9 | +7.8 | |
Ind. Conservative | Frederick Charsley[12] | 796 | 8.5 | N/A | |
Turnout | 5,746 (est) | 70.8 (est) | +5.4 | ||
Registered electors | 8,114 | ||||
Conservative hold | Swing | −4.8 | |||
Conservative hold | Swing | −6.3 | |||
Majority | 0 | 0.0 | −15.2 | ||
Liberal hold | Swing | +11.1 | |||
Majority | 1,994 | 21.4 | +1.2 |
- Constituency divided in the 1885 redistribution
See also
[edit]- List of former United Kingdom Parliament constituencies
- Unreformed House of Commons
- List of parliaments of England
References
[edit]- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af Stooks Smith, Henry. (1973) [1844-1850]. Craig, F. W. S. (ed.). The Parliaments of England (2nd ed.). Chichester: Parliamentary Research Services. pp. 14–15. ISBN 0-900178-13-2.
- ^ Fisher, David R. (1986). Thorne, R. (ed.). "CAVENDISH, Charles Compton (1793–1863), of Latimers, nr. Chesham, Bucks". The History of Parliament. Retrieved 29 July 2018.
- ^ Spencer, Howard; Salmon, Philip. Fisher, D. R. (ed.). "CAVENDISH, Charles Compton (1793–1863), of Latimers, nr. Chesham, Bucks". The History of Parliament. Retrieved 29 July 2018.
- ^ "Bucks Gazette". 7 August 1847. p. 4. Retrieved 29 July 2018 – via British Newspaper Archive.
- ^ "Members Returned". Norfolk News. 7 August 1847. p. 2. Retrieved 24 June 2018 – via British Newspaper Archive.
- ^ "Buckinghamshire". North Devon Journal. 17 December 1857. p. 8. Retrieved 29 July 2018 – via British Newspaper Archive.
- ^ "Buckinghamshire Election". Oxford Journal. 26 December 1857. p. 8. Retrieved 29 July 2018 – via British Newspaper Archive.
- ^ a b Fisher, David R. "Buckinghamshire". The History of Parliament. Retrieved 30 April 2020.
- ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Craig, F. W. S., ed. (1977). British Parliamentary Election Results 1832-1885 (e-book) (1st ed.). London: Macmillan Press. pp. 355–356. ISBN 978-1-349-02349-3.
- ^ "Buckingham". Banbury Guardian. 22 July 1852. p. 3. Retrieved 19 October 2018 – via British Newspaper Archive.
- ^ "Buckinghamshire". Berkshire Chronicle. 31 January 1874. p. 8. Retrieved 28 December 2017 – via British Newspaper Archive.
- ^ "District News". Bucks Herald. 10 April 1880. p. 6. Retrieved 28 December 2017 – via British Newspaper Archive.
- The History and Antiquities of Buckinghamshire, Vol. 1, by George Lipscomb (1847)
- The House of Commons 1754-1790, by Sir Lewis Namier and John Brooke (HMSO 1964)
- Political Change and Continuity 1760-1885: A Buckinghamshire Study, by Richard W. Davis (David & Charles 1972)
- The Parliaments of England by Henry Stooks Smith (1st edition published in three volumes 1844-50), second edition edited (in one volume) by F. W. S. Craig (Political Reference Publications 1973)
- Who's Who of British Members of Parliament: Volume I 1832-1885, edited by M. Stenton (The Harvester Press 1976)
- British Parliamentary Election Results 1832-1885, compiled and edited by F. W. S. Craig (The Macmillan Press 1977)
- Leigh Rayment's Historical List of MPs – Constituencies beginning with "B" (part 6)