Borough

Hertford was one of the most factious boroughs in England, though such an impression may partly be due to the wealth of surviving sources, which allow a fuller exploration of its political, personal and religious disputes than is possible for many other corporations. The town contained ‘above 300 hundred inhabitants’, a high proportion of whom were Dissenters. The Compton census of 1676 estimated that a third of the adult population of the town were Nonconformists, and the Evans list put the number of Dissenters eligible to vote at 150, with a further 124 votes ‘influenced’ by them.

While failing to attain the national notoriety achieved by other spectacularly rotten boroughs, Weobley enjoyed a considerable local reputation for venality. The susceptibility of the Weobley voters to bribery was so well known that an elector in Leominster anxious to sell his own vote to the highest bidder could advertise himself as ‘a Weobley man’; while the fondness of the population for alcoholic entertainment led to the description of the town by one candidate as ‘our liquid metropolis’.

As in other boroughs with a scot-and-lot or inhabitant franchise, the electorate in Leominster included numbers of the needy and vulnerable, and contests were usually followed by accusations of bribery and intimidation. A free-for-all was avoided, however, because of the degree of control exercised over voters and voting by the bailiff, magistrates and municipal officers, a powerful local oligarchy alternately engaged in the service of one or other of the principal landowners of the neighbourhood.

Hereford, described by Defoe as ‘large and populous’ but ‘old, mean built and very dirty’, had a ‘popular and numerous’ electorate with a substantial proportion of non-resident freemen, some as far afield as London, a fact that facilitated the domination of the constituency by local magnates, in particular the Foleys of Stoke Edith, the 8th Lord Chandos and, at the beginning of this period, Lords Coningsby (Thomas*) and Scudamore (John†). The interest of the corporation was not insignificant.

The chief interest at Yarmouth lay with the governor of the Isle of Wight, in 1690 Sir Robert Holmes, a Court Tory, who in addition to the influence he exerted by virtue of his office, had built up a personal interest in the borough, where he had acquired property. He returned two Court nominees, both outsiders, Sir John Trevor, subsequently chosen Speaker, and Charles Duncombe, the wealthy Tory banker. On the death of Holmes in 1692 his estates and electoral influence at Yarmouth passed to his nephew, Henry Holmes, also a Tory but, unlike Sir Robert, a Country supporter.

The right of election at Winchester lay with the freemen, all of whom were allowed to participate not only in parliamentary elections but also in the election of new freemen, thereby lessening, although not eliminating, the electoral influence of the corporation, consisting of the mayor, six aldermen and 24 common councilmen. The strongest interest was exercised by the 1st Duke of Bolton (Charles Powlett†), by virtue of the patronage he could wield as lord lieutenant of Hampshire, a post to which he had been appointed in 1689, and as high steward of Winchester.

Whitchurch was a borough by prescription, and did not have a corporation, though there was ‘a tradition that the town was formerly much larger and had a charter’. Browne Willis* described the right of election as being in ‘all such as have any burgage tenure, [that is] freehold within the limits of the borough either in land or houses of any value’. The office of mayor was titular only, while the dean and chapter of Winchester were the lords of the manor in Whitchurch.

Stockbridge was a borough by prescription, of which Browne Willis* wrote that ‘they have a charter but could not be informed from whom or when’. The main officials in the town were the bailiff and constable, who were elected annually. Stockbridge was considered to be one of the most venal boroughs in the country. After a by-election in 1689 a bill had been introduced for its disfranchisement, but not passed.

Browne Willis* recorded that Southampton and the surrounding area was ‘a town and county which has many franchises and privileges granted it by several Kings’, and that the manor of the town and county was ‘vested in the mayor and burgesses’. This description may help to explain why the right of election had been disputed between the corporation and the inhabitants paying scot and lot. After a contested by-election in 1689, the Commons decided in favour of the wider franchise, but the corporation could create unlimited numbers of non-resident freemen to swell the electorate.

Before 1689 the electorate at Portsmouth had been confined to the freemen, but in that year the inhabitants at large were allowed to vote and they continued to do so in 1690 and 1695. The strongest interests lay with the governor of the military garrison and the Admiralty through the dock, naval and victualling yards.