During this period the electorate of Petersfield was enlarged by the practice of splitting some of the ancient burgages into several separate tenements, which were then conveyed temporarily to friends or agents of the candidates. In the petition proceedings after the by-election in 1727, the petitioner and the sitting Member objected respectively to 23 and 94 split votes out of a total of 299. Similar charges were made by the petitioner in 1734.CJ, xx. 859-61; xxii. 336.

The representation of Lymington was shared by the Powletts, dukes of Bolton, lords lieutenant of Hampshire, with the Burrards, a local family who managed the borough, packing the corporation so successfully that in 1722 Paul Burrard said ‘all the old burgesses now alive (except one) from the year 1686 to 1701, were made by us’. When in 1722 Lord William Powlett attempted to secure the second seat, Paul Burrard successfully objected, pointing out to him:

In 1715 to the Christchurch corporation returned the former Tory Members, Sir Peter Mews, lord of the manor of Christchurch, and William Ettrick, who had represented the borough since the Revolution. On Ettrick’s death in 1716 he was succeeded unopposed by another Tory, Francis Gwyn, who had represented Christchurch in the previous reign. Re-elected with Mews in 1722 but choosing to sit for Wells, Gwynn was succeeded by his son, also a Tory, against Joseph Hinxman, a local Whig landowner.

The right of election at Andover was in the corporation, who allowed John Wallop, Lord Lymington, a neighbouring landowner, to nominate one Member. The other seat was filled by their recorder, William Guidott, till 1727, when Charles Colyear reported to Walpole:

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.

From 1715 to 1734 the representation of Gloucestershire was monopolized by local Whig families. In 1715 Thomas Stephens of Lypiatt and Matthew Ducie Moreton were returned unopposed. Stephens died in 1720 and Moreton was made a peer in the same year. In the uncontested by-elections which followed, two other Whigs, Henry Berkeley of Berkeley and Edmund Bray of Great Barrington replaced them.

In 1715 the sitting Members for Maldon were two Tory lawyers, both local men: Thomas Bramston, whose family held the high stewardship of the borough, and John Comyns, who had sat for it in every Parliament but one in the previous reign. Both were re-elected after a contest but on petition the House of Commons unseated Comyns ‘for want of a qualification’, awarding the seat to one of the defeated Whig candidates, Samuel Tufnell.