Maidstone, the 2nd Lord Egmont wrote in his electoral survey, c.1749-50, ‘is a perplexed interest’. The chief interests in 1715 were those of the Finches, earls of Aylesford, Tories, and the Marshams, later Lords Romney, Whigs; but for nearly 30 years after the 1st Lord’s death in 1724, his successor took no part in local politics.
In Canterbury, one of the nineteen cities and towns being counties in themselves, the returning officer was a sheriff, appointed by the corporation.
The selection of candidates for Kent county elections was governed by a convention that one of them should be an East Kent and the other a West Kent man. The chief Whig families were the Sackvilles of Knole, dukes of Dorset, and the Fanes of Mereworth, earls of Westmorland. The Government had an interest based on the Chatham docks and the Cinque Ports.
Huntingdon was dominated by the earls of Sandwich, who lived at Hinchingbrooke within the town, nominating both Members, usually without opposition. The only contest that occurred between 1715 and 1754 was in 1741, when the 4th Earl of Sandwich, who on coming of age in 1739 had joined the Opposition, put up two anti-government candidates, Wills Hill and Edward Montagu, against two government candidates, Roger Handasyde and Albert Nesbitt.
Traditionally, the Huntingdonshire elections were controlled by the great Whig family of Montagu, represented by the Dukes of Manchester at Kimbolton and the Earls of Sandwich at Hinchingbrooke. There were other families with considerable electoral influence. The Probys of Elton, John Dryden, M.P., followed by his nephew Robert Pigott of Chesterton, the Bernards of Brampton, Coulson Fellowes, though a newcomer, of Ramsey Abbey, all had established claims to be considered as representatives for the county.
At the accession of George I the chief interests in St. Albans were those of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, derived from the estate of Sandridge, close to the borough, of the Grimstons of Gorhambury, two miles away, and of the corporation from the mayor’s power of creating honorary freemen. The Lomax and the Gape families, whose estates lay near the town, also had some electoral influence. The Grimstons and the Lomaxes were government Whigs; the Duchess soon became bitterly opposed to Walpole; the Gapes were Tories; the corporation sided alternately with the two major interests.
Hertford was always represented by members of the local landed families, mostly of comparatively recent origin, descended from London lawyers, merchants and bankers, who had bought estates in the county. There was a large nonconformist vote, which supported the Whigs, except for the Quakers, who even before the Spencer Cowper case in 1699 appear to have voted Tory.CJ, x.
Throughout the reign of George I, Hertfordshire was represented by two Tories, Ralph Freman and Sir Thomas Sebright. In 1727 Freman, after representing the county for 30 years, was ousted by his brother-in-law, Charles Caesar, who had stood unsuccessfully in 1722. Although Freman was a Hanoverian Tory, on both occasions Caesar, a Jacobite, was supported by leading local Whigs, such as William Plumer; in 1727 Freman complained that ‘the Government’s officers to a man opposed him in favour of Mr.
Till 1737 Weobley was an independent venal borough, usually returning candidates drawn from local families at £15-£20 a vote.Ld. Weymouth to Ld. Gower, 7 Nov. 1735, Bath mss, Longleat. In that year the House of Commons, on a petition by James Cornewall against John Birch, decided that the right of election was in the occupiers or owners of certain ‘ancient vote-houses’ and not in the householders at large.CJ, xxii. 770. Commenting on this decision, Edward Harley observed that
Leominster had a reputation for venality. In 1717 George Caswall’s agent was paying up to 20 guineas a man;Ibid. 573. in 1721 Edward Harley, then M.P. for the borough, said that it had ‘become mercenary, and the best bidder will have the best interest to be served’;To the Duke of Chandos, 21 Dec. 1721, Portland mss. and all that the 2nd Lord Egmont could say for it in his electoral survey, c. 1749-50, was that he did ‘not think it so venal as to be carried by the best bidder’.
