Gloucestershire

Cirencester was one of the nation’s principal centres of woollen cloth production and marketing. Defoe reported that wool was ‘sold here in quantities, so great, that it almost exceeds belief’. The town’s manufacturers, dealers and traders thus accounted for most of its leading townsmen. Unusually for a large town, Cirencester was governed, not by a corporate body, but by a manorial court, and all who were qualified to vote were known as ‘burgesses’. In the midst of the borough itself were two predominating interests, both of whom were Tory.

The life and politics of Bristol were inextricably bound up with its port, the largest outside the capital. The city’s governors were an oligarchy of merchants and manufacturing tradesmen, many from old and wealthy mercantile dynasties interlinked by bonds of marriage, and a strong sense of civic consciousness promoted the virtues of economic well-being. This ruling elite exerted a considerable hold over the city’s large ‘open’ franchise. Bristol could boast the largest urban electorate outside London.

No family succeeded in establishing a permanent interest at Gloucester, though the Selwyns of Matson held one seat from 1727 to 1780. The corporation had some influence through its power to create freemen. The out-voters were a considerable element in every contest, and added greatly to the expense. The recorder had also some influence, depending upon his stature and the part he took in civic life.

Tewkesbury was a placid borough, with the corporation in control. It was free from the cruder forms of bribery: instead, the Members paid a lump sum or else made a contribution towards some municipal undertaking. About 1754 the Dowdeswell, Martin, and Gage families had most influence in the borough: nine Dowdeswells had sat since 1660; the Martins held one seat 1734-47 and 1774-1807; and Lord Gage sat from 1721 to 1754.

In the first half of the eighteenth century the leading interests at Cirencester were in the Bathurst and Master families, both of which were Tory. But when in 1749 Thomas Master died, leaving a five-year-old son, a rift occurred between the Tories.

In 1754 Bristol was the second largest city in the kingdom and the third largest urban constituency. Elections were extremely expensive: of its 5,000 voters about a third lived outside the town; canvassing was laborious; and the size of the constituency forced it to develop some sort of political organization.

Oldfield commented in 1816 that Tewkesbury was ‘not subject to the control of a patron’ and its electors were ‘as free from improper influence as the defective state of our representation will admit’.Rep. Hist. iii. 493. Electoral influence was exercised through the corporation, who looked for Members among the neighbouring landowners. Although Tewkesbury was untainted by the cruder forms of bribery, it could be expensive. Members were expected to provide gifts or loans for municipal purposes and entertainment bills were sometimes high.

In 1780 and 1784 the Whig corporation, which had the power to create freemen and owned extensive property in the city, combined with the 11th Duke of Norfolk, who had an estate nearby, to return both Members, though one of them, Sir Charles Barrow, was nominally independent. On Barrow’s death early in 1789, they put up Norfolk’s cousin Henry Thomas Howard of Thornbury Castle, near Bristol.

The strongest interest at Cirencester belonged to the Earls Bathurst, whose house and park adjoined the town and who, as lords of the manor, appointed the steward and bailiff, the returning officers. Their influence was all-pervading, but it fell considerably short of total electoral control of a borough where a sizeable proportion of the adult males had the vote. They commanded the return to one seat only, while the other usually went to local men or neighbouring landowners.

By the end of the 18th century Bristol had lost its position as the second largest city and second most important port in the kingdom, but it remained one of the most prestigious and demanding constituencies. Despite its large electorate, of which a significant proportion was non-resident, control was securely in the hands of the long-established political clubs, led by a comparatively small number of men from the propertied and mercantile classes.