Although Kent had numerous resident peers, none had sufficient estates to domineer their gentry neighbours. Indeed, what differentiated the Kentish aristocracy from the greater gentry was merely their access to estates and wealth drawn from outside the county’s borders.
In terms of its landowning elite, Huntingdonshire was a small pond containing two very big fish, both of them Montagus, the Earl of Manchester at Kimbolton and the Earl of Sandwich at Hinchingbrooke House, which lay adjacent to the county town itself. Yet there was always sufficient independence among the greater gentry and the freeholders to prevent either or both of the magnates from engrossing the representation had they been able to attempt it.
Although contested six times in the period, Hertfordshire was, after the by-election of 1697, firmly in the grip of the Tories, who monopolized its representation in Parliament for the next 30 years, with only a single seat being conceded to the Whigs in 1705. This situation may appear surprising given the county’s strong Dissenting interest, but Tory control owed something to the large number of absentee freeholders, many of whom lived in London, and to superior organization by the gentry, especially in the northern and eastern districts.
The ideal of a parliamentary election as the expression of the unanimous will of ‘the gentlemen of the country’ was widely and frequently professed in Herefordshire, and even in this period was occasionally realized through the traditional procedure of a ‘general meeting’ or, in less formal consultations, at assizes.
The chief electoral magnate in Hampshire was the Duke of Bolton (Charles Powlett†), the lord lieutenant and owner of considerable estates in the county. At the 1690 election Bolton’s son, the Marquess of Winchester (Charles Powlett I), was returned with Richard Norton I of Southwick, an army officer who commanded one of Bolton’s regiments. Norton’s death in May 1691 necessitated a by-election. Initially, Sir Robert Worsley, 4th Bt.†, was
Reflecting on the 1690 election in Gloucestershire, Viscount Weymouth (Thomas Thynne†), whose brother James* had just been defeated there, was struck by the infusion of ‘party’ into the campaign, observing that the only competitive element in previous elections had been ‘affection to the persons standing’. This observation is substantially borne out by Gloucestershire’s electoral history in the post-Restoration decades when candidates of like-minded Whiggishness appeared almost routinely in opposition to one another.
The two contested by-elections and eight contested general elections during the period indicate the strong divisions that existed in Essex, which reached their height in the elections of 1695 and 1705. Differences of opinion were apparent even between the different branches of families, such as the Mildmays, with the Whig Henry Mildmay and the Tory Carew Hervey Mildmay representing different ends of the political and religious spectrum. It was not just the rage of party that maintained an atmosphere of almost continuous electioneering.
Durham elections were dominated by the influence of the county’s major gentry, many of whom possessed interests in the county’s coal industry in addition to their landed estates, with no single family having a dominant or pre-eminent interest. The county was contested only twice in this period, a fact which may point to a lack of political conflict within Durham but which probably also owed a great deal to the tendency of the county’s gentry to resolve their differences prior to the poll.
There was not a single contest in Dorset in this period. As previously, the Tories were dominant. Since 1679 the two seats had been held in partnership by Thomas Strangways I and Thomas Freke I. They enjoyed the support of the Tory lord lieutenant, the 3rd Earl of Bristol (John Digby†). The Whig interest in the county, headed by the earls of Shaftesbury, made little impact until after 1698, the only notable event in that election being a delay caused by the inadvertent despatch of the Dorset writs to Cornwall and vice versa.
There was a strong tradition in Devon of restricting the shire seats to a handful of the county’s chief gentry families. Intra-gentry squabbling had frequently accompanied the post-Restoration elections, but during the reigns of William and Anne agreement was usually reached without any real struggle, thus satisfying an all-round preference for consensus and inexpensive contests. The Courtenays and the Rolles, two of the wealthiest families in the county, had monopolized the county seats during much of the 17th century and continued to do so.
