Both Buckingham seats were controlled by the local Whig families of Temple, afterwards Grenville, of Stowe, and Denton of Hillesden. The Temples were the lords paramount of the borough, receiving a quit-rent from the corporation; the Dentons held the Prebend End manor within the town.VCH Bucks. iii. 481, 483. After 1715, when a Tory single was defeated, there were no contested elections.

There was no predominant interest at Aylesbury, where the principal qualification for success was, as the 2nd Lord Egmont wrote in his electoral survey, c.1749-50, to be ‘a moneyed man’. In 1727 Philip Lloyd estimated his expenses at £900;Lloyd to Walpole, Aug. 1727, Cholmondeley (Houghton) mss. in the same election an agent of Sir William Stanhope’s spent £541, chiefly at public houses, including £173 on the election day.Gibbs, Hist.

Both seats at Amersham were controlled by the Drakes of Shardeloes, one mile from the borough, who as lords of the manorVCH Bucks. iii. 147. appointed the returning officer, nominating Tories at every election. During the long minority of William Drake, who held one seat for 50 years, single anti-Drake candidates were put up at three elections between 1728 and 1735 but their voting strength was only about half that of the Drake candidates.

At George I’s accession, Buckinghamshire was represented by two Tories. The head of the Tory interest was the lord lieutenant, Lord Cheyne, who was replaced by a Whig before the general election; that of the Whigs was Lord Wharton, who died soon after it. To make certain of securing one seat at the 1715 election Wharton arranged for what he called a ‘shameful compromise’Wharton to Rich. Hampden, 9 Oct. 1714, Glynde mss, E. Suss.

Wallingford was an independent borough, ‘in the hands of the lower people’. There was no predominant territorial influence; the corporation were divided, half for and half against the Administration;John Hervey to Ld. Hardwicke, 10 Jan. 1753, Add. 35592, ff. 6-7. every election was contested. The most important interests were those of wealthy business men, such as William Hucks, the King’s brewer, who carried the borough for the Government from 1715 till his death in 1740, except in 1727 when he appears to have compromised with a Tory, George Lewen.

Reading was an independent borough with a comparatively large electorate, which was not controlled by any outside influence. The principal interest seems to have lain in the corporation, who on 22 Oct. 1705 passed a resolution that it is the opinion of the board that for the time to come, the mayor, aldermen and burgesses in their common council, in case of members to serve in Parliament for this borough, do first determine and resolve amongst themselves who shall be deemed fit representatives for that purpose.HMC 11th Rep.

Abingdon was an open borough, subject to no predominant influence. The mayor and corporation were Tory, but though they put the strongest pressure on their tenantsElizabeth Pevvy to Walpole, 10 Apr. 1734, Cholmondeley (Houghton) mss. they could not prevent the return of Whigs, in the persons of Hucks and Wright, from 1722 to 1747. Only candidates with local interests were returned; ‘as to a stranger’, an authority on Berkshire boroughs warned the Duke of Bedford when he was thinking of intervening and 1753, ‘they only want such a person to pluck and defeat him’.

The chief interest in Berkshire was that of the 2nd Earl of Abingdon, a Tory, who had previously represented the county. In 1715 both the sitting Tory Members were re-elected unopposed, retaining their seats against a Whig candidate in 1722. In 1727, when they were opposed by Lord Fane, a local Whig landowner, Lady Fane appealed to a friend in London to ask Walpole to obtain the interest of the dean of St.

As in the county the Whig and Tory strengths in Bedford were about equal. The recorder was Lord Bruce, a Tory, appointed in 1711, who sold his Ampthill property, a few miles from the borough, to the Duke of Bedford in 1730.VCH Beds. iii. 271. The Dukes of Bedford at Woburn exerted a strong influence from 1726, mainly in support of anti-government candidates. Elections seem to have been managed by the local landowners, from whose ranks most of the ten Members were drawn, two only being strangers. With a wide franchise, corruption was rife.

From 1715 to 1754, although the Whig and Tory strengths were about equal in the county and the earlier elections were stoutly contested, only three Tories were returned, one of whom was unseated on petition. Till the reign of George II the principal Whig influence lay in the Duke of Kent, who wrote to Walpole, 15 Dec.