Commons 1754-1790

London was probably the most politically conscious constituency in Great Britain, and political movements emanating from London affected the neighbouring constituencies of Westminster, Southwark, Middlesex, and Surrey. The franchise was not as wide as that of the freeman boroughs, and did not include the labouring classes; but only Westminster, among the urban constituencies, had a larger electorate. In its court of aldermen and common council London had an elective system of local government, which could be used to organize and channel political agitation.

In 1762 John Page, who had represented Grimsby in the earlier part of the century, told the Duke of Newcastle that the electors of Grimsby were ‘venal to a man’.Add. 32942, f. 62. And he added:

Grimsby men hate joining of interest so much that no two candidates ever dared to own they supported each other, though at times there have been private undertakings between them.

Lincoln was an open borough, and contests were so frequent and expensive that in 1784 Sir Joseph Banks, a neighbouring gentleman, wrote: ‘after having distressed two or three families, no one will now attempt’.Mss of the Spalding Gentlemen’s Society. The Monsons of Burton and the Lumleys of Glentworth had the best interest, and several local gentlemen had influence, but any combination between the gentry was sure to be opposed by a third party among the freemen. The London outvoters comprised a considerable part of the electorate, and were always anxious for a contest.

Three interests struggled at Boston. The Berties, Dukes of Ancaster, were strong enough to carry one seat throughout the period; the second was disputed between the corporation interest and a third ‘independent’ group. Between 1741 and 1777 the corporation seat was held by two local men, John Michell and Charles Amcotts. On Amcotts’ death in 1777 the corporation brought in Humphrey Sibthorp of Canwick.

Oldfield wrote about Grantham in 1792: ‘The Duke of Rutland and Lord Brownlow, from their property in the town, the contiguity of their seats, and their personal interest, have the entire command of its representation.’ The same holds good throughout the period. When in 1766 John Calcraft, a friend of Lord Granby and son of a town clerk of Grantham, tried to establish an interest in the borough, obviously against the Custs, he received no encouragement from Belvoir;Recs. Cust. Fam. ii. 84, 249, 253; Add. 17496, ff.

The course of Leicester politics in the second half of the eighteenth century was largely determined by the conflict between the corporation and the independent party, and between the Anglicans and the Dissenters. These did not always coincide, but two parties tended to develop—one calling themselves Whigs, and the others called by their opponents Tories. Rioting was endemic at election time, but party conflict and the size of the electorate prevented the borough from becoming corrupt.

The leading family in Lincolnshire was the Berties, who could generally command one seat. There was no contest between 1724 and 1807. Whichcot served until 1774, when he declined on account of age and asthma, having sat for thirty-four years.Lincoln, Rutland & Stamford, Merc. 6 Oct. 1774. His successor, Charles Anderson Pelham, sat for twenty years.

Because of the size of its electorate and the nature of its franchise Wigan was an extremely difficult constituency to manage. The electorate was sufficiently small to tempt a patron, yet too large for it to be controlled without considerable labour and expense. The voters were mainly small shopkeepers and craftsmen, without much political consciousness. The admission of freemen was regulated by a complicated municipal constitution, whose exact interpretation depended in the last resort on the courts of law.

Although there were important aristocratic interests in Leicestershire, notably those of the Duke of Rutland and the Earls of Stamford, Huntingdon and Harborough, the county representation was almost completely dominated by the country gentlemen. Only one son of a peer sat for Leicestershire during this period: the other Members were all country gentlemen, and it was only in alliance with one of these that an aristocratic interest could be effective.

The politics of Liverpool turned on the conflict between the Anglican-dominated corporation and an independent party supported by the Dissenters; and the names Whig and Tory were used to distinguish the two sides. But political divisions at Liverpool did not necessarily correspond with those at Westminster. The Government had some influence through the customs appointments and the merchants need for Government favours, but there was in no sense a Government interest.