Three families, all seated within a few miles of Bury St. Edmunds, contended for the representation of the borough: the Fitzroys, Dukes of Grafton; the Herveys, Earls of Bristol; and the Davers of Rushbrooke. Between 1754 and 1790 the Fitzroys held one seat for 31 years, the Herveys one seat for 17 years and both seats for four years, and the Davers family one seat for 16 years.
In 1754 two men had an important interest at Tamworth: Lord Weymouth, owner of Drayton Manor, two miles from Tamworth, and George Townshend, owner of the castle. Of lesser importance were Sir Robert Burdett and Simon Luttrell. Burdett, of an old Warwickshire family, M.P. for Tamworth since 1748, had the support of those who feared aristocratic domination.
Newcastle wrote about Lichfield in his electoral survey of March 1754: ‘Lord Gower and Lord Anson to name by agreement for seven years.’ This statement anticipates their success. The borough had a complicated franchise; Gower and Anson had systematically bought up freeholds and burgages, and created faggot votes by splitting freeholds and granting annuities. But there was a strong independent party, and it was not until 1762 that they gained control of the borough.J. C. Wedgwood, Staffs. Parlty. Hist. ii.
Stafford was an expensive and difficult constituency, with an electorate composed mostly of tradesmen.
Much depended at Wells on control of the corporation, which could manipulate the franchise by creating honorary freemen. Local families had most influence, and during this period the Tudways came close to being patrons.
Throughout this period the natural interest at Minehead belonged to Henry Fownes Luttrell, who, through his marriage to the heiress of the Luttrell family, had inherited Dunster Castle, an estate in Somerset, and the lordship of the manor of Minehead (with the right of appointing the returning officer). But that interest had been much neglected, and at the general election of 1747 Luttrell had failed to secure the return of his candidate.
Taunton was an open borough, and contests were frequent and violent. Dissenters formed a large part of the population and had considerable influence. In 1754 Lord Egremont had the chief interest; and by alliance with the Dissenters, and having the support of Government, controlled one seat. The other was usually filled by a local man, and there was keen rivalry between the Dissenters in the town and the neighbouring country gentlemen.
Ilchester was a venal borough, with an electorate described by Francis Fane in 1756 as ‘poor and corrupt, without honour, morals, or attachment to any man or party’.Add. 32867, f. 474. The election of 1774 was declared void because of bribery, and John Harcourt was unseated in 1786 because of ‘gross and illegal’ malpractices by the returning officer. For most of this period its patron was Thomas Lockyer, but by 1774 his hold on the borough seems to have become less complete.
Basically Milborne Port was a scot and lot borough, but the choice of returning officers was the result of a complicated procedure which invited contention. There were nine capital burgesses or bailiffs, the holders of ancient tenements, two of whom in rotation appointed returning officers. In 1754 four of these tenements were owned by Thomas Medlycott and five by Edward Walter: together, therefore, they controlled the returning officers, and since each owned a good deal of property in the borough, in effect they controlled its representation.
In 1761, when William Pitt was returned a second time for Bath, he paid tribute to ‘a city ranked among the most ancient and most considerable in the kingdom, and justly famed for its integrity, independence, and zeal for the public good’.Pitt to the corporation of Bath, 12 Apr. 1761, Chatham mss. The corporation consisted for the most part of country gentlemen and substantial tradesmen, proud of their independence and integrity; and the Members had either strong local connexions, or were national figures.
