The chief interest in 1754 was in the Duke of Newcastle, lord of the manor of Newark. Next came that of the Sutton family which, through the marriage to the 3rd Duke of Rutland of the daughter and heir of the last Lord Lexinton, passed to Lord Robert Manners Sutton. The patrons worked together, and since 1715 had each recommended to one seat.
Local landowners had a good deal of influence in Nottingham, particularly the Duke of Newcastle, leader of the Whigs, and Lord Middleton, leader of the Tories. The Dissenters were strong in the town, and in the second half of the eighteenth century controlled the corporation (to whose support the Howes owed their influence). Abel Smith, the leading local banker, had a strong interest, based on his ability to grant credit to the small manufacturers who formed a fair proportion of the voters.
Berwick ranked as an open borough, but Government had considerable influence through the Customs, Excise, and Taxes, the Post Office, and the garrison, navy, and Ordnance.
At Morpeth there were seven trade guilds, each of which had the right to elect a certain number of freemen. These were then admitted at the court leet of Lord Carlisle, who owned the manor. To an increasing extent during the eighteenth century the Carlisle family exercised control by restricting the number of freemen, and in 1747 the fourth Earl persuaded the guilds to pass a resolution that no freemen should be elected without his consent.
Northampton had a very wide franchise, comprising about two-thirds of all resident adult males. The labouring class, except those in receipt of poor relief, were entitled to vote; and there was a large Dissenting element in the population. Yet its politics were mainly personal in character and subject to aristocratic influence. ‘I have always understood’, wrote the Duke of Newcastle in 1768, ‘that when my Lord Halifax and my Lord Northampton agreed ... their interest was secure’;Add. 32989, f.
The most important interest at Peterborough was that of the Fitzwilliam family who owned large estates in the neighbourhood and almost invariably returned one Member. But it was ‘by no means ... a commanding interest’;Matthew Lamb to Ld. Fitzwilliam, 28 Dec. 1767, Fitzwilliam mss, Northants RO. it always required attention, and was expensive to maintain. Richard Terrick, bishop of Peterborough, wrote to Lord Hardwicke, 6 Oct. 1762:Add. 35607, f. 2.
Higham Ferrers was a pocket borough of the Marquess of Rockingham, and after his death in 1782, of his nephew and heir, Earl Fitzwilliam.
Brackley was always counted as a pocket borough of the Duke of Bridgwater. In 1754 Bridgwater, a minor, was on the grand tour, and his affairs were managed by his uncle the Duke of Bedford. At Brackley a complete stranger, Thomas Humberston, bribed a majority of the corporation into promising him single votes. Bedford, with Dickinson and Vernon, the Bridgwater candidates, went down to try and retrieve the situation.
In 1754 Norwich was the third largest city in England and the fourth largest urban constituency, a cathedral city of great dignity and antiquity and the centre of the Norfolk woollen industry. Its municipal constitution resembled that of London, with a court of aldermen and a court of common council; and municipal politics were fiercely contested. There was a large body of Dissenters; and since the franchise included freeholders as well as freemen, a considerable rural vote.
Euston Hall, seat of the Dukes of Grafton, is four miles from Thetford, and during this period the borough was under Grafton’s control.
