Gloucestershire

Tewkesbury elections were controlled by the corporation, who usually chose neighbouring landowners, notably the Dowdeswells of Pull Court, who had constantly represented the borough since the Restoration, the Martins of Overbury, who held one seat in every Parliament but one from 1734 to 1807, and Lord Gage of Highmeadow, who sat from 1721 to 1754. Though the corporation prided themselves on being ‘above corruption’, elections were in fact extremely expensive. In 1727 a prospective candidate wrote:

Owing to the size of the electorate there was no single dominant interest at Gloucester, though the Selwyns of Matson, who were said to govern the city through its reservoirs on their property,See SELWYN, John. held one seat almost uninterruptedly from 1727 to 1780. The Whig corporation had some influence through its power of creating freemen and its control of certain charities, but the majority of the population were Tories. All the Members were local men and every general election but one was contested.

Cirencester was controlled by two Tory families, each returning one Member: the Bathursts, who as lords of the manor appointed the returning officer, and the Masters, who had property in the borough. Normally their nominees were unopposed but in 1722 the Duke of Wharton, having quarrelled with Bathurst, promised to pay the poet Edward Young for opposing Bathurst’s brother, which he did unsuccessfully, never recovering his expenses from Wharton.C. H. Parry Mem. of Rev.

The parties at Bristol, a large open constituency, were evenly balanced, the Whigs having the support of the corporation and the wealthiest inhabitants,Cholmondeley (Houghton) mss; Short Case of the Bristol Election (1734). while the Tories had the better organization. In 1715, after an eight-day poll, the Whig candidates were returned by the sheriff, though they had been defeated at the poll by their Tory opponents,J. Latimer, Annals of Bristol in 18th Cent. 108-9. who petitioned the House of Commons three years in succession without securing a hearing.

Elections at Tewkesbury seem to have been successfully managed by the corporation, which consisted of two bailiffs, 24 ‘principal burgesses’, and 24 assistants. The surviving returns are in the name of the ‘burgesses’, presumably the corporation, and freemen, but never carry more than 35 signatures. The representation of the borough was monopolized by the Dowdeswell family, Sir Francis Russell, and Sir Henry Capel. Russell and the Dowdeswells lived in the neighbourhood, while Capel held the Barton manor.

Gloucester’s resistance to Charles I under the governorship of Edward Massey may well have turned the tide of the Civil War, and made the city an object of particular suspicion after the Restoration, when its walls were razed. Elections were largely under the control of the corporation, and usually at least one alderman was returned. No opposition was apparently offered in 1660 to Alderman James Stephens, a zealous Parliamentarian who had represented the city in the two preceding Parliaments.

The marriage of the 1st Earl of Newburgh to the daughter of Sir Henry Poole of Sapperton in or about 1660 brought him the manor of Cirencester. His bailiff normally acted as returning officer for the borough. Most of the rest of the Poole estate, including the Seven Hundreds of Cirencester, was bought by Robert Atkyns between 1661 and 1667. The other principal interest was enjoyed by the Masters of Cirencester Abbey.

In the eyes of Samuel Pepys, Bristol was the only provincial centre which could be compared with London, either in the urbanity of its atmosphere or the wealth and dignity of its merchants. Despite its large electorate it was generally amenable to government influence, exercised first by the Duke of Ormonde and later by the Marquess of Worcester (Henry Somerset).

The borough of Cirencester was the property of the abbey there until the dissolution of the monasteries. By the beginning of Elizabeth’s reign the borough had been acquired by John Danvers, whose son Charles represented the town in the 1586 and 1589 Parliaments. Charles Danvers succeeded his father in 1594 but was executed in 1601 for his part in the Essex rebellion. His property escheated to the Crown and was not restored to the family until July 1603.

Gloucester received a renewal of its charter in 1561, vesting the government of the city in a mayor (elected by the aldermen and 12 common councilmen), recorder, town clerk (or deputy recorder), two sheriffs, 12 aldermen, various minor officials and a common council. The election writs went direct to the city sheriffs and some four or five hundred citizens could vote at the elections held at the guildhall. The size of the electorate, while ensuring independence from outside patrons, encouraged contested elections and faction struggles.