Borough

Taunton easily gave the impression of being one of the most Whiggish boroughs in England. The Somerset historian John Oldmixon wrote in 1711: ‘there are more fanatics in it than in any corporation in England, more Whigs than the ward of Breadstreet, more wealthy men than the whole shire of Cardigan’. But though the tradition of opposition and Dissent was deeply embedded in the town’s recent history, strong Tory influences had also held sway, and not least those represented by the Portman family, whose principal estate at Orchard Portman lay just two miles distant.

The controlling interest at the port of Minehead lay with the Luttrells of Dunster Castle, strong Tories, who, as lords of the manor, had the right to appoint the returning officers, the two constables. In 1690 Colonel Francis Luttrell, then head of the family, was returned with Nathaniel Palmer, a Tory landowner, who had represented Minehead since 1685. On Palmer’s choosing to sit for the county, his place was taken by another Tory, John Sanford, a wealthy merchant with estates in Somerset.

Milborne Port’s parliamentary seats came more firmly under the control of the owners of the town’s nine burgages or bailiwicks during this period, and as such took on the classic characteristics of a ‘pocket borough’. The right of election lay in the burgage holders, known as the chief bailiffs or capital burgesses, plus nine stewards and the inhabitants paying scot and lot.

Ilchester, despite its unprepossessing appearance, was an important political focus in Somerset, being the local field of influence of several of the county’s most prominent families, and also the venue for the election of knights of the shire. Four miles to the south was Montacute, belonging to the Phelipses, who had dominated the borough for much of the 17th century and had held the office of high steward on almost a hereditary basis.

The strong Dissenting interest in Bridgwater naturally produced intermittent bouts of political infighting between Whigs and High Churchmen, but parliamentary elections had largely ceased to be occasions for bringing these tensions into the open. The corporation of 24, which had the strongest hand in controlling a modestly sized scot-and-lot electorate, carefully cultivated links with members of the local gentry, but nevertheless maintained a jealous eye over the borough’s parliamentary seats, and during these years promoted the election of several of its senior members.

By the last decade of the 17th century Bath was already a popular place of resort, but the city’s political affairs and its government were firmly in the hands of men of local standing. The franchise was the preserve of the 30-strong corporation, with no aristocratic influence being exerted until 1710. The candidates were usually members of the civic elite or of the local gentry, and invariably it was from the latter that the city’s representatives were chosen.

Shrewsbury elections were usually controlled by the Tories, who drew most of their strength from outside the town, from the suburbs and the extensive liberties of the borough, and from among the ‘out-burgesses’. A local Tory squire, John Kynaston of Hordley, had an especially strong interest. But there was also a considerable Tory element in the town itself, and Tory mobs went on the rampage in 1710 and 1714.

No more than a seventh of the Much Wenlock electorate resided in the town, according to one estimate, and the two most powerful interests by far belonged to neighbouring country gentlemen: Sir William Forester, the lord of the manor of Little Wenlock, and the Welds of Willey Park, who, by an arrangement between them, jointly controlled the representation throughout this period. Forester, a Court Whig, and George Weld I, a Tory, were returned unopposed in 1690 and at every election thereafter until Weld’s death in 1701, when he was succeeded as Member by his eldest son George Weld II.

James II’s reversal in 1688 of his earlier policy towards the boroughs gave rise to confusion in Ludlow, and by 1690 there were two rival bodies each claiming to be the legal corporation, one holding by the ancient charter which had been surrendered in 1684 and the other by a new charter granted by King James in the following year in order to establish a Tory-controlled corporation.

Two families dominated elections at Bridgnorth: the Whitmores of Apley and the Actons of Aldenham. Both had property within the borough and estates nearby. The influence of the Whitmores was the greater. They owned more of the town and, although no Whitmore ever served as an alderman or a bailiff, the government of the corporation was usually in the hands of their supporters. The Weavers of Morville, another local family with property in the town and influence in the constituency, acted in concert with the Whitmores. There was also a sizable body of Dissenters in the borough. Ibid.