The franchise at Bath was in the corporation, a close body, recruited by co-option. In spite of this narrow franchise, against which some of the citizens petitioned unsuccessfully to the House of Commons in 1728,CJ, xxi. 49. Bath was an outstandingly independent and respectable borough. For most of the period it was run by its famous postmaster, Ralph Allen, whose father-in-law, George Wade, held one seat from 1722 till his death in 1748.
The Somerset electors invariably chose local Tory country gentlemen, who were usually unopposed. Only twice was an attempt made by the Whigs to challenge Tory ascendancy. In 1715 George Speke and John Pigott stood in the Whig interest. Speke’s father circularized the freeholders on behalf of his son as follows:
In 1715 the chief interests at Wenlock were in Sir William Forester, who had represented it 1679-81, and 1689-1715, and in his first cousin, the 2nd Earl of Bradford, the head of the Shropshire Whigs, whose brother held the second seat. These two families continued jointly to control the representation of the borough till the death of the 3rd Earl of Bradford in 1734, when that interest fell into abeyance, leaving the Foresters in control of both seats. The 2nd Lord Egmont noted in his electoral survey, c.1749-50, that Wenlock was ‘in Forester’.
Shrewsbury elections were contested on party lines by much the same families as those of the county. The corporation was dominated by the Whigs, who thus had control of the admission of freemen, but before 1723, owing to the size of the electorate, this advantage was not decisive. The Whigs had the support of the Dissenters and of the most powerful local landowner, Lord Bradford, whilst the Tory strength lay mainly in the suburbs and liberties, which extended over a wide area of countryside.
In spite of the relatively large electorate, Bridgnorth was dominated by the Whitmores of Apley, Whigs, who owned a large part of the town, appointed most of the local lay and ecclesiastical officials and maintained a close control on the corporation, headed by two annually elected bailiffs, who acted as returning officers.J. F. A. Mason, Borough of Bridgnorth 1157-1957, pp. 32-34. Their chief rivals were the Tory Actons of Aldenham, who were supported by a Jacobite element in the town.
In the early eighteenth century Shropshire was hotly contested between Whigs and Tories, drawn from a small group of families, the Tories being nearly all Jacobite sympathizers. The heads of the Whig interest were the Earl of Bradford and his son Henry, Lord Newport, supported by the Corbets of Stoke and Moreton Corbet; the chief Tories were Lord Gower, who had some interest in the north of the county, the Jacobite Kynastons and Robert Lloyd, and after 1740 Richard Lyster and Sir John Astley.
Rutland politics were dominated by the Finches, earls of Winchilsea and Nottingham, the Noels, earls of Gainsborough, and the Cecils, earls of Exeter.
From 1715 to 1747 the representation was monopolized by the Finches and the Noels, except in years when they ran out of family candidates. In 1734 Noels, with the concurrence of the Finches, who were all provided for, took both seats. When in 1741 Lord Winchilsea put up his brother, John Finch, Lord Gainsborough wrote to him that he was
The Tory-controlled corporation was the most powerful influence in the city of Oxford. All the Members returned were Tories. Thomas Rowney and his son, Thomas, who were members of the corporation, had the chief interest, representing the town for 64 years between them. In 1743 the younger Rowney succeeded Montagu Bertie, 2nd Earl of Abingdon, as high steward of the borough.
The only contest occurred in 1722, when, a Tory reports,
Owing to the proximity of Blenheim, New Woodstock fell under the influence of the dukes of Marlborough, who became its hereditary high stewards, claiming the right of appointing the recorder of the borough.A. Ballard, Woodstock Chrons. 109, 126.
The chief interests in Banbury at George I’s accession were in two neighbouring Tory families, the Norths of Wroxton, three miles from the borough, and the Copes of Hanwell, two miles away. There was a strong non-juring party in the corporation who in 1715 returned Sir Jonathan Cope, an extreme Tory, unopposed. But in July 1718 a new charter was issued, under which another corporation was appointed.A. Beesley, Hist.
