Commons 1715-1754

Westmorland elections were usually settled without a contest by agreement between the Lowthers, the Wilsons of Dallam Tower, Whigs, and the Grahmes of Levens, Tories, whose estates passed in 1730 to Henry Bowes, 4th Earl of Berkshire, through his wife, the daughter and heiress of James Grahme. The only contest occurred in 1741, when both Lord Berkshire’s son, Lord Andover, and Sir Philip Musgrave of Edenhall laid claim to the seat hitherto held by Anthony Lowther, who died later that year. In a letter of 31 Mar.

Up to 1734 Warwick returned Tories for both seats on the recommendation of William Greville, 7th Lord Brooke, recorder of the borough. At a hard fought by-election in November 1722 Lord Brooke, by gaining the support of a majority of the corporation, was able to secure the return of his nominee, Sir William Keyt, against a Whig opponent, Henry Delves, at great expense. His London agent was

The chief interest in Coventry was that of the corporation, which was dominated by the nonconformists,

From 1715 to 1754 Warwickshire, ‘a county with hardly a Whig in it’,Stuart mss 65/16. was represented by Tory country gentlemen, who were all unopposed.

Steyning was an independent venal borough, always returning government supporters, except in 1715, when on a petition against Robert Leeves, a Tory,

it was proved that thirty-four of the sitting Member’s voters received bribes for their votes from the sitting Member a few days before the election; some had five pounds, and others four guineas a piece, and that several hogs and some corn were distributed to them by the sitting Member’s orders.CJ, xviii. 535.

Shoreham was a thoroughly venal borough, usually returning wealthy merchants, able not only to spend money freely on individual voters but ‘to assist in building merchant vessels, it being the chief manufacture of this borough’.Namier, Structure, 129. The Government had a certain influence from the local customs officers and also from Shoreham men employed at Woolwich and Deptford.

In 1715 the chief interest at Midhurst was in the Viscounts Montagu, the lords of the manor, Roman Catholics, who at this time took no active part in elections. The borough was controlled by the Duke of Somerset, and, successively, by William Woodward and Bulstrode Peachey, who both took the name of Knight on their marriage to Elizabeth Knight, an heiress owning the neighbouring manor of West Dean. The Duke and Bulstrode Peachey each purchased burgages from the 6th Viscount Montagu, undertaking ‘to assist each other’s interest upon all occasions should either be attacked’A. A.

Both Members for Lewes were returned by the Duke of Newcastle, whose interest was based on his property in the town, on his own and his cousins’ seats at Halland, Bishopstone and Stanmer, and on traditional regard for the Pelham family; but it was a troublesome borough requiring constant attention.

The chief interests in Horsham at George I’s accession were those of Charles Eversfield, a Tory, and of the Ingrams, Viscounts Irwin, Whigs. As neither owned a majority of burgages each relied on the independent burgage holders for votes. In 1715 there was a contest at which two Eversfield candidates were returned but the seats were awarded to the Ingrams on a petition alleging partiality by the returning officers, as well as malpractices by the sitting Members’ agent, who was committed to the custody of the serjeant at arms.CJ, xviii.

The predominant interest at East Grinstead was in the Duke of Dorset, the lord of the manor, who owned most of the burgages there.W. H. Hills, Hist. East Grinstead, 43-44, 50. Except in 1727, when he nominated both Members, he shared the representation successively with the Tory Conyers and the Whig Webster families, both of whom also owned property in the town. The only threat of opposition occurred at a by-election in 1750, when Lord Hardwicke, whose son was being put up by the Duke of Dorset, learned that