In 1796 Charles Abbot, a native of Abingdon, described its electoral composition as follows:

The electors ... are about 240 scot and lot; about 70 of them take money. About half of the 240 go with the corporation. The dissenters, headed by the Tomkiss’s [Tomkinses] and Fletchers, are the next best interest. Child, the brewer, and his friends, have also considerable weight. If all three sets can agree, they carry the place in defiance of all opposition.

There was no commanding aristocratic presence in Berkshire; large landowners were few, and there was a comparative absence of propertied and traditional influence. The 6th Lord Craven, a Whig, had had a major say in the disposal of one seat until 1784, when the Coalition sitting Members were ousted by two ministerialists. He died abroad in 1791 and there is no indication that his successor sought to restore the family interest to its former strength.

The influence of the Russell family at Bedford, overpowered by Sir Robert Bernard and the corporation in 1769, had only been strong enough, since the death of John, 4th Duke of Bedford in 1771, when Bernard became recorder, to supply reinforcement to the interest established by Samuel Whitbread I, the wealthy brewer, who became a staunch supporter of Pitt.

At the dissolution of 1790 the influence of the 5th Duke of Bedford was paramount in Bedfordshire. His cousin, Lord Upper Ossory, occupied the seat which was customarily filled by a Woburn nominee. The other Member, St. Andrew St. John, sat nominally on the interest of his brother, Baron St. John, with the support of the county’s lesser Whig elements, later described as being ‘not amongst the gentry, but amongst the middle classes and more particularly the dissenters’,Add. 51662, Bedford to Holland, 11 Aug.

The principal interest in Wigtown and Whithorn belonged to the Stewarts, earls of Galloway; the Dalrymples, earls of Stair, were in control at Stranraer; New Galloway, in Kirkcudbright, was more open owing to the attainder of the Jacobite Earl of Kenmure in 1716. Perhaps because of a series of unopposed returns, the rota of presiding burghs, as laid down in the Act of Union, was not strictly adhered to.

The chief interests in Tain Burghs were those of the Sinclairs of Ulbster at Wick, the earls of Morton at Kirkwall, the Munros of Foulis at Tain, the earls of Cromartie at Dingwall, and the earls of Sutherland at Dornoch. From 1715 to 1741 the seat was held, with government support, by Sir Robert Munro, who wrested the control of Dingwall from the Cromarties in 1716,NLS, 1392 (Delvine Pprs.), f. 170. retaining it by arresting and kidnapping opponents.Alex.

Under George I Stirling Burghs, one of the most venal constituencies in Scotland, was represented by Henry Cunningham, a Walpole Whig, who inherited an interest in Stirling. He built up another interest in Inverkeithing by purchasing tenements there from the 1st Earl of Rosebery, whom he succeeded as provost in 1720.Ramsay of Ochtertyre, Scotland and Scotsmen in 18th Cent. ii. 120-1; W. Stephen, Hist.

Perth Burghs, in three counties, were open and venal. The nearest approach to a territorial interest was that of the earls of Rothes, whose seat adjoined Cupar. All the Members were government supporters.

Lanark was influenced by the earls of Hyndford, Peebles by the earls of March, Selkirk by John Murray, the hereditary sheriff of Selkirkshire, Linlithgow by the Tory dukes of Hamilton.

In 1715 the strongest interest in Inverness and Forres was that of the Forbes family of Culloden; Fortrose was controlled by the Earl of Seaforth, attainted for his part in the rebellion of that year; Nairn by Hugh Rose of Kilravock. The sitting Member, William Steuart, supported by the Forbes and Rose interests, was opposed by Seaforth’s brother, Alexander Mackenzie, who withdrew, leaving Steuart to be returned unopposed.