Commons 1715-1754

Westminster, wrote the 2nd Lord Egmont, who sat for it as Lord Perceval,

consists of the greatest number of votes in the whole kingdom, excepting only the county of York; for it contains above 16,000 houses, which are of such a rent as to be charged to the church and poor, and consequently to entitle the possessors to vote. It is true, that many of these being untenanted, inhabited by women, or by persons not qualified, or able, the number is reduced to about 9,000, who may be presumed to vote at any contested election.

In 1715, according to a Whig report, the Tories,

having got a great mob on their side at Brentford, where the election for the county of Middlesex came on, ... those who came for the Whig candidates, Sir John Austen and Henry Barker Esq., were so deterred by the insults of the rude unruly multitudes (who were encouraged and set on by several clergymen) that great numbers of them went away without giving their votes: by which means the high church candidates, viz. the Hon. James Bertie and Hugh Smithson Esq., carried the day.Pol. State, ix. 88.

Elections in London were comparatively democratic, owing to the size and character of the electorate, which consisted mainly of small merchants, shopkeepers, and master craftsmen. The Government had a certain amount of influence through the number of voters who were

In 1715 the representation of Stamford was shared between two Tory families, each returning one Member: the Berties of Uffington, two miles from the borough; and the Cecils, earls of Exeter, ‘of Burghley House by Stamford town’. By 1727 the Earl of Exeter had increased his interest sufficiently to capture both seats, ousting the Berties in the person of Charles Bertie. In 1734 the Exeter interest was challenged by Savile Cust, the uncle of Sir John Cust, whose family formerly had considerable influence in Stamford.J.

Lincoln was an open borough, returning neighbouring country gentlemen. The most important Whig interests were those of the Monsons of Burton, two miles away, who held one seat almost continuously 1722-68, and of Sir Thomas Lumley Saunderson, who in 1723 inherited estates in the county. In 1727 Sir John Monson, who was standing for re-election, told Newcastle that

Grimsby was a venal borough, the resort of shady business men, including a strong South Sea contingent— Arthur Moore, expelled from his South Sea directorship in 1714; Sir Robert Chaplin, expelled from the House of Commons for his complicity in the South Sea scandal; John Gore, another guilty but less seriously implicated director, and his brother-in-law, Charles Pelham; Robert Knight, John Page, and Benjamin Collyer, respectively the son, son-in-law, and brother-in-law of Robert Knight, the absconding cashier of the Company.

The chief interests at Grantham were in two neighbouring Whig families, the dukes of Rutland, seated at Belvoir, seven miles from the borough, and the Brownlows of Belton and Humby, also not far away. The 3rd Earl of Cardigan, whose estate at Hougham was six miles from Grantham, supported the local Tories till his death in 1732. Most of the corporation were Tories.J. Garner to John Heathcote, 18 Mar. 1722, I Ancaster mss 13/B/2, Lincs. Archives Office.

At George I’s accession the chief interests at Boston were in the 1st Duke of Ancaster, recorder of the borough,P. Thompson, Hist. Boston, 458. and the Tory dominated corporation. Under the Tory ministry at the end of Anne’s reign the corporation had been able to return two Tories, Richard Wynn and Henry Heron, who were re-elected in 1715 unopposed.

The leading family in Lincolnshire was the Berties, lord lieutenants of the county, created dukes of Ancaster on George I’s accession. In 1715 the county returned one Whig, Sir John Brownlow, connected by marriage with the Duke of Ancaster, and one Tory, Sir Willoughby Hickman, without a contest. On Hickman’s death in 1720 the Duke’s brother, Albemarle Bertie, was put up against a Tory, Sir William Massingberd, who wrote a fortnight before polling day:

The chief interest at Leicester was that of the Tory corporation, who were Jacobite sympathizers. Troops were quartered in the town during the rebellion of 1715. At the time of the Atterbury plot of 1722, the Duke of Rutland and other Whig leaders alleged that the corporation had allowed the enlisting of men in the Pretender’s service and the proclaiming of him as James III in the town. They were also accused of tolerating Jacobite disturbances in 1738 and 1744.