Borough

George Bubb Dodington sat for Bridgwater 1722-1754 on an interest inherited from his uncle, George Dodington, who had represented the borough 1708-1713 and 1715-20. The Pouletts of Hinton St. George held one seat 1741-52, 1741-52, when, owing to divisions in the family, they lost it to Robert Balch, whose grandfather and great-grandfather had represented Bridgwater in the 17th century. From about 1750 Lord Egmont began to cultivate an interest. These were the chief forces in the politics of Bridgwater at the general election of 1754.

The chief interest in the borough 1754-90 was in the Forester family; but the Bridgemans, too, had a certain influence, exercised in alliance with the Foresters.Namier, Structure, 243-4. There were no contests during this period.

In 1754, and again in 1761, the Whitmores of Apley held undisputed sway at Bridgnorth, the other two families with property near or in the borough, the Actons of Aldenham and the Weavers of Morval (succeeded by the Blayneys) having become inactive. John Grey, brother of Lord Stamford, was a Whitmore nominee, but had the additional advantage of residing eight miles from Bridgnorth and of being a brother-in-law of Richard Acton.

Ludlow was entirely under the patronage of Henry Arthur Herbert, 1st Earl of Powis, till about 1770 when he sold to Lord Clive his estate of Oakley Park, adjoining the borough. But the two families closely co-operated, and on 7 May 1784, the 2nd Lord Clive married the sister of the 2nd Lord Powis, whose estate she inherited on his death in 1801. Their joint interest in the borough was challenged in 1780 by Thomas Beale (probably of Heath House, Salop, some seven miles from Ludlow): that the threat was treated as serious is evidenced by the correspondence extant in the Powis mss.

Before 1722 the number of freemen exceeded 1,300. But by 1747 the corporation, allied to the Whigs, managed to reduce it to about 300, first by a decision of the House of Commons in 1723 which greatly narrowed down the boundaries of the parliamentary borough, and next by restricting admission to its freedom. The opposite interest was aided in its lawsuits against the corporation by neighbouring Tory country gentlemen whom it supported in parliamentary elections. The Dissenters, mostly Presbyterians, formed a third interest in the borough.

Bishop’s Castle was the one notoriously corrupt borough in Shropshire, and though neighbouring big landowners had a natural influence in it, there being several such competing interests, the borough was till the 1760’s open even to strangers. Perhaps the strongest single interest was that of the Walcots of Walcot Hall, about 2½ miles from Bishop’s Castle; next, of the Warings of Owlbury. Before the general election of 1761, Shelburne noted against Bishop’s Castle in his list of constituencies:Lansdowne mss.‘Contest—want money and not the present [Members]’.

New Woodstock, ‘adjoining to the wall of Blenheim Park’,Oldfield, Boroughs (1792), ii. 390. was a complete pocket borough of the Duke of Marlborough.

Oxford was one of the larger freeman boroughs, but the corporation retained control of the representation throughout this period. In 1754 the corporation was in the hands of the Tories, and both the Members returned at the general election were Tories. Thomas Rowney was high steward, and was succeeded in 1759 by Sir James Dashwood, who had stood on the Tory interest in the celebrated county election of 1754.

Banbury was under the control of the Earl of Guilford, seated at Wroxton, three miles away.

Though there were disputes within the corporation,See Bodl. North mss and Waldeshare mss, Kent RO. none of Lord North’s eleven elections in this period was contested.

In 1754 East Retford was under the patronage of the Duke of Newcastle. It was managed by John White, M.P. for the borough since 1733, a close friend of Newcastle, who had some interest of his own. Newcastle’s hold on the borough was considered sure, and there was no opposition in 1754 or 1761.