Borough

In 1792 Oldfield wrote about Canterbury:Boroughs, ii. 155. ‘This city is entirely independent in its election of Members of Parliament, and is neither under the influence or control of any patron or leading man.’ The dean and chapter, the Dissenters, town patricians, and neighbouring squires all had a certain influence in elections; but no one interest predominated, and a seat at Canterbury was held on an uncertain tenure. Most of the electors resided in the town or its neighbourhood.

At Maidstone Lord Aylesford and Lord Romney both had an old-established interest; there was a strong independent party, nurtured by the Dissenters (in 1809 estimated at nearly half the borough); and a minor Government interest from the dockyards at Rochester, Chatham, and Deptford.

Oldfield wrote about Huntingdon in 1792:Boroughs, ii. 143.

The interest of the Earl of Sandwich is so powerful as always to return two Members; and this he effects, not by weight of property, for his Lordship has but one house in the whole town, but by his popularity, and the obligations which he was enabled to confer upon some of his principal friends during his connexion with Lord North’s Administration.

Hertford was an independent borough, generally reckoned one of the most uncorrupt in the kingdom. ‘The Dissenting interest is very considerable there’, wrote Paul Feilde in 1769,Add. 35639, f. 124. particularly the Quakers. The representatives were nearly all drawn from local gentry; and the leading families concerned in the borough were the Harrisons of Balls Park, the Cowpers of Panshanger, the Calverts, and the Dimsdale and Brassey families. But almost any substantial Hertfordshire country gentleman would have had a chance.

The chief interest in the borough was in the Spencer family, who had inherited an estate near and in St. Albans from Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, and in the Grimston family of Gorhambury, two miles from the borough. Lord Salisbury, at Hatfield only four miles from St. Albans, had some influence; and so had James West, who during the 27 years he represented the borough built up an interest of his own. A good many town notables carried weight; and there was also a fairly large venal vote.

Weobley had a complicated franchise, akin to that of a burgage borough. About 1750 the leading interests were in Lord Weymouth, lord of the manor, who nominated the returning officer, and Mansell Powell, a shady attorney, who owned a majority of the vote houses. In the first half of the century the borough was much disputed, and there was a strong party bent on preventing it becoming close. Between 1750 and 1754 Weymouth, by his purchase of Powell’s vote houses, gained a commanding interest; which was confirmed at the general election of 1754.

Hereford was an independent constituency, and preferred local men to strangers. The leading interest was in the Scudamore family, who held at least one seat throughout this period. Next came that of the Symons family. Others who had some interest were Lord Oxford, Lord Bateman, the Cornewalls of Moccas Court, and the Foleys.

At Leominster, which was reputedly very open, several neighbouring landowning families seated within a radius of about five miles from the borough had an interest. The Coningsbys of Hampton Court, whose heiress married Charles Hanbury Williams, had represented Leominster in the first half of the eighteenth century as Whigs, the Harleys as Tories. But no family could obtain a permanent, still less an exclusive, hold on the borough. If at Leominster ‘two brothers were to stand, they must be clear of each other’.Somerset Davies, receiver of the land tax for Shropshire, to Ld.

Stockbridge was a venal borough. In 1754 Robert Henley (later Lord Northington) managed the election, at least for one seat (of George Hay). But on 23 Nov. 1756, over Hay’s re-election, Henry Fox sent the following account of Stockbridge to the Duke of Bedford:Bedford mss 32, f. 107.

Whitchurch was a proprietary borough, but its proprietors changed. About 1750 its patrons were Lord Portsmouth and John Selwyn. On Selwyn’s death in 1751 his interest passed to his son-in-law, Thomas Townshend; and from 1754 to 1774 one Member was chosen by Townshend and the other by Portsmouth. In 1774 and 1780 Thomas Townshend jun. (later Lord Sidney) and his nephew Lord Midleton were returned and Midleton held his seat after 1784, although by then he and Sidney were politically opposed.