Apart from the elections of 1660 and 1661, about which evidence is lacking, all the general elections were contested, though the poll survives only for 1689. There was apparently no dominating aristocratic influence in the earlier part of the period. In 1660 the county returned two moderate Parliamentarians in James Fiennes (whom Anthony a Wood described as ‘an honest Cavalier and a quiet man’) and Lord Wenman.
Nottinghamshire was not yet entitled to be called ‘The Dukeries’, but for a small county it was already remarkably well favoured with resident peers. The Cavendishes of the junior line (successively marquesses and dukes of Newcastle) held the lieutenancy and enjoyed the principal interest for all except the opening and closing months of the period. Their steadfast royalism, with that of the Byrons, the Chaworths and the Suttons (Barons Lexinton), was counterbalanced by the Holles earls of Clare and, less consistently, by the Pierreponts.
Although faction flourished in Northumberland, especially under the inept lieutenancy of the 2nd Duke of Newcastle, only one contested election is known. Sir William Fenwick was returned as senior knight of the shire in 1660, and he and his son held one seat until the Revolution, while his junior colleague, Ralph Delaval, was almost as successful. Both families had supported Parliament in the Civil War, and in 1661 Delaval had to give way to Lord Mansfield, son of the Cavalier general in the north.
‘Northampton, a town and country of very eminent disaffection to the King throughout the war’, could only be induced to return court candidates with extreme artifice throughout this period. For the general election of 1660 the gentry selected two Presbyterians, John Crew and Richard Knightley. But as early as 5 Apr. it was reported that ‘Northamptonshire hath resolved to choose none of the Long Parliament’.
The general election of 1660 was principally a trial of strength between the two knights of the shire in Richard Cromwell’s Parliament, Sir Horatio Townshend, a key figure in royalist conspiracy, and Sir William Doyley, an opportunist who was equally ready to return to his former allegiance. Townshend was partnered by Lord Cramond, whose father had died in a parliamentary prison early in the Civil War.
The Restoration came early to Monmouthshire, Sir Trevor Williams inducing the militia to declare for the King even before the general election of 1660, when Lord Herbert, the effective head of the Raglan family, was returned with William Morgan, the heir to the Tredegar estate. There was probably no contest then or in 1661, but the remainder of the period was dominated by the uneasy relation between the Raglan interest and the county gentry.
Thanks to the diary of Samuel Pepys no period of London history is better known than the years of the Restoration, which had indeed come about through a tax-payers’ revolt against the Rump, in alliance with the well-disciplined forces of George Monck.
Although Middlesex was too large and popular a constituency to allow for its being amenable to patronage, it is clear that the protection provided by the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Grey of Warke was an important factor in the exclusionist successes in 1679-81. The conduct of the elections by the elected sheriffs of London also favoured radical candidates. But the results in 1660 and 1689 suggest that there was normally a majority for more cautious policies.
Lincolnshire was the only county constituency in England for which one Member sat continuously throughout the period and beyond. Lord Castleton certainly did not owe his success in nine consecutive general elections to intense parliamentary activity or to a particularly clear-cut political line, although his attempt to hold the balance between court and country evidently appealed to the electorate. One of his assets was that his family, through genealogi cal accident, had no Civil War record to repel voters on either side.
A county like Leicestershire, with only one par liamentary borough, might have expected to experience severe competition for the honour of knight of the shire. But only in 1679, at the height of the Exclusion crisis, was there a serious contest. Perhaps the territorial prestige of the Earl of Rutland and the personal reputation of Lord Sherard, who represented the county in six Parliaments from 1679 to 1695 deterred potential rivals. It fell to George Faunt, a strong Royalist, to conduct the general election of 1660.
