Commons 1754-1790

Bishop’s Castle was the one notoriously corrupt borough in Shropshire, and though neighbouring big landowners had a natural influence in it, there being several such competing interests, the borough was till the 1760’s open even to strangers. Perhaps the strongest single interest was that of the Walcots of Walcot Hall, about 2½ miles from Bishop’s Castle; next, of the Warings of Owlbury. Before the general election of 1761, Shelburne noted against Bishop’s Castle in his list of constituencies:Lansdowne mss.‘Contest—want money and not the present [Members]’.

The traditional party alignments continued at Oxford long after they had vanished elsewhere. The old interest reigned supreme, and the university showed a preference for safe Midland squires. Several local noblemen had influence, and the Government carried weight through its disposal of clerical patronage and the regius professorships, but the university remained fiercely jealous of its independence. There was always considerable pressure to avoid the inconvenience of a contest, and the sitting Members were sure of re-election.

Three families dominated Rutland politics: the Cecils, Earls of Exeter; the Noels, Earls of Gainsborough; and the Finches, Earls of Winchilsea.

New Woodstock, ‘adjoining to the wall of Blenheim Park’,Oldfield, Boroughs (1792), ii. 390. was a complete pocket borough of the Duke of Marlborough.

Oxford was one of the larger freeman boroughs, but the corporation retained control of the representation throughout this period. In 1754 the corporation was in the hands of the Tories, and both the Members returned at the general election were Tories. Thomas Rowney was high steward, and was succeeded in 1759 by Sir James Dashwood, who had stood on the Tory interest in the celebrated county election of 1754.

Between 1710 and 1754 there was no contest in Oxfordshire; but the electoral peace was broken in 1754 when Sir Edward Turner and Lord Parker, supported by the Duke of Marlborough and Lords Macclesfield and Harcourt, stood on the new or Whig interest, against the Tories, Lord Wenman and Sir James Dashwood.

Banbury was under the control of the Earl of Guilford, seated at Wroxton, three miles away.

Though there were disputes within the corporation,See Bodl. North mss and Waldeshare mss, Kent RO. none of Lord North’s eleven elections in this period was contested.

In 1754 East Retford was under the patronage of the Duke of Newcastle. It was managed by John White, M.P. for the borough since 1733, a close friend of Newcastle, who had some interest of his own. Newcastle’s hold on the borough was considered sure, and there was no opposition in 1754 or 1761.

The chief interest in 1754 was in the Duke of Newcastle, lord of the manor of Newark. Next came that of the Sutton family which, through the marriage to the 3rd Duke of Rutland of the daughter and heir of the last Lord Lexinton, passed to Lord Robert Manners Sutton. The patrons worked together, and since 1715 had each recommended to one seat.

Local landowners had a good deal of influence in Nottingham, particularly the Duke of Newcastle, leader of the Whigs, and Lord Middleton, leader of the Tories. The Dissenters were strong in the town, and in the second half of the eighteenth century controlled the corporation (to whose support the Howes owed their influence). Abel Smith, the leading local banker, had a strong interest, based on his ability to grant credit to the small manufacturers who formed a fair proportion of the voters.