New Windsor

Right of election

in inhabitants paying scot and lot

Background Information

Number of voters: about 280

Constituency business
Date Candidate Votes
26 Jan. 1715 CHRISTOPHER WREN
141
ROBERT GAYER
137
Sir Henry Ashurst
136
Samuel Travers
135
20 Mar. 1722 CHARLES BEAUCLERK, Earl of Burford
249
WILLIAM O'BRIEN, Earl of Inchiquin
211
— Proctor
80
Robert Gayer
3
31 May 1726 LORD VERE BEAUCLERK vice Burford, called to the Upper House
16 Aug. 1727 LORD VERE BEAUCLERK
247
GEORGE CHOLMONDELEY VISCT. MALPAS
244
Francis Oldfield
53
15 May 1732 BEAUCLERK re-elected after appointment to office
16 May 1733 LORD SIDNEY BEAUCLERK vice Malpas, called to the Upper House
23 Apr. 1734 LORD VERE BEAUCLERK
LORD SIDNEY BEAUCLERK
10 Mar. 1738 LORD VERE BEAUCLERK
133
RICHARD OLDFIELD
133
28 Apr. 1740 LORD SIDNEY BEAUCLERK re-elected after appointment to office
2 May 1741 LORD SIDNEY BEAUCLERK
HENRY FOX
26 Dec. 1743 FOX re-elected after appointment to office
3 Dec. 1744 LORD GEORGE BEAUCLERK vice Lord Sidney Beauclerk, deceased.
31 May 1746 FOX re-elected after appointment to office
26 June 1747 LORD GEORGE BEAUCLERK
HENRY FOX
Main Article

<p>The principal interest at Windsor lay in the castle. From 1722 to 1761 the Beauclerk dukes of St. Albans, lords lieutenant of Berkshire 1714-51, who owned Burford House in the borough, always held one of the seats, the 2nd Duke being constable of the castle 1730-51. According to the Duchess of Marlborough, George II said at his levee in 1738, &#8217;Lord Vere [Beauclerk] should have the seat in Parliament, for Windsor was his [i.e. the King&#8217;s] borough&#8217;.<a class='fnlink' id='t1' href='#fn1'>1<span><em>Mems of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough</em>, ed. King, 328.</span></a> Members returned were always agreeable to the Crown and supporters of the Administration, except in 1715, when two Tories were returned thanks to the support of the displaced constable, the Duke of Northumberland, the partiality of the mayor as returning officer, and the power to influence workmen at the castle by their positions at the office of works. Their Whig opponents, who were supported by the new constable, the Duke of Kent, were seated on petition.<a class='fnlink' id='t2' href='#fn2'>2<span><em>CJ</em>, xviii. 26, 62-64.</span></a></p><p>In 1738 Lord Vere Beauclerk</p><blockquote><p>was most warmly opposed by the Duke of Marlborough and the old Duchess [the ranger of Windsor Great Park], in favour of one Mr. Oldfield of the town, a person of no great merit, and by very ill management on the part of the St. Albans family, Lord Vere was in great danger of losing it. But in the event the votes were equal, 133 each. The Commons, who have often made a minority a majority, you will easily believe could do it on an equality ... They declared Lord Vere duly elected by 240 to 160.<a class='fnlink' id='t3' href='#fn3'>3<span><em>HMC 14th Rep. IX</em>, 239.</span></a></p></blockquote><p>In 1741 Henry Fox, then surveyor of the works, took the second seat, which he retained for 20 years. Though four times returned unopposed, the expense of maintaining his interest was considerable. He wrote in December 1743: &#8217;The company which I treat every Wednesday increases excessively. So I am in a fair way to be very poor and very successful&#8217;; and in May 1746 he estimated his expenses at a by-election to be &#8217;something under £400&#8217;.<a class='fnlink' id='t4' href='#fn4'>4<span>Ilchester, <em>Lord Holland</em>, i. 104, 133.</span></a></p>

Author
Notes
  • 1. Mems of Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, ed. King, 328.
  • 2. CJ, xviii. 26, 62-64.
  • 3. HMC 14th Rep. IX, 239.
  • 4. Ilchester, Lord Holland, i. 104, 133.