Argyllshire was dominated by the dukes of Argyll, its hereditary sheriffs, who returned members of the Campbell clan, except in 1742,when the 2nd Duke nominated his nephew, Stuart Mackenzie.

Under George I Aberdeenshire was represented successively by two local landowners, Sir Alexander Cumming, a Tory, and Sir Archibald Grant, a Whig, who went into opposition. Before the general election of 1727 Walpole was informed that ‘the bulk of the Whig interest there’ was in the various branches of the Forbes family, of whom ‘the most considerable for his estate’ was Sir Arthur Forbes, then a minor.Cholmondeley (Houghton) mss 68. Grant was re-elected after a contest, defeating Alexander Fraser, the brother-in-law of Lord Ilay, Walpole’s election manager for Scotland.

This seat depended on the power of the corporation of New Radnor to create freemen in the capital borough, and on that of the steward of the King’s manors to create freemen, as well non-resident as resident, in three of the contributory boroughs, Rhayader, Knighton and Knucklas.

Under George I and George II there were two main sources of electoral influence in Radnorshire: the Maesllwch estate, owned by Sir Humphrey Howorth, M.P. for the county 1722-55; and the stewardship of the King’s manors, comprising two-thirds of the county, granted to Lord Coningsby at George I’s accession. Coningsby used his power to destroy the influence of the Harleys,HMC Portland, v.

Pembroke was controlled by the Owens of Orielton, Whigs, who always returned members of their family or nominees. In 1715 a Tory, Sir George Barlow, encouraged by a House of Commons decision in 1712 that the borough of Wiston had the right to vote in Pembroke elections,CJ, xvii. 108-10. which weakened the Owen interest, unsuccessfully challenged Thomas Ferrers, the Owen candidate. Both sides created new freemen, but Barlow failed in his attempt to poll the Wiston voters.CJ, xviii. 37; NLW, Gen. Coll.

After the death of John Laugharne, who sat for Haverfordwest as a Tory throughout Anne’s reign, the borough was usually represented by members of three local families, Barlow of Slebech, Philipps of Picton Castle and Edwardes of Johnston. The only exception was John Barlow of Lawrenny, a Whig, who though defeated at the poll, was awarded the seat on petition at the by-election following Laugharne’s death in 1715.

The leading Whig family in Pembrokeshire were the Owens of Orielton, who represented the county from 1689 to 1710 and from 1715 to 1727. In 1727 John Campbell of Calder, and of Stackpole Court, Pembrokeshire, joined with another local family, Philipps of Picton Castle, to turn out Sir Arthur Owen.NLW, Gen. Coll.

Until 1727 this constituency was dominated by an alliance of the Tory patrons who controlled the three out-boroughs. Llanidloes lay in the Llwydiarth estate, inherited by Watkin Williams Wynn from Edward Vaughan in 1718; Welshpool and Llanfyllin in that of Powis Castle; Montgomery, the shire town, was controlled by the Whig Herberts of Oakley Park, who challenged the Tory interest represented by John Pugh in 1715 and 1722. On Pugh’s retirement in 1727 there was a double return.

At the beginning of the eighteenth century the dominant interests in Montgomeryshire were those of Edward Vaughan of Llwydiarth, the Member since 1679, and of the Marquess of Powis, who did not recover his Jacobite father’s estates till 1722. On Vaughan’s death in 1718 his estate and influence passed to his son-in-law Watkin Williams Wynn, whose nominees were always returned unopposed for the county, with the support of the Marquess of Powis.NLW, Powis Castle mss 1101. Wynn himself in 1741 temporarily replaced his brother after his own defeat in Denbighshire.

The Vaughans of Corsygedol, who possessed the leading interest in Merioneth, represented the county as Tories without opposition from 1701. Although Watkin Williams Wynn of Wynnstay had inherited the important Rhiwgoch estate in 1719, he made no attempt to interfere in the affairs of Merioneth.P. D. G. Thomas, ‘Parl. Rep. Merioneth during the 18th Cent.’, Merion. Hist. Jnl. iii. 128-36.