Newton was a pocket borough of the family of Legh of Lyme Park. As lords of the manor they appointed the steward and the bailiff (the returning officers), and in this period had complete control of the corporation.
By a determination of the House of Commons in 1661 the right of election was in the inhabitants, which was always understood to mean the resident freemen; and the borough was controlled by the corporation and the neighbouring gentry. Lord Strange, son of Lord Derby, had an estate around Preston and cultivated the borough; and in 1768, after one of the most violent elections of this period, wrested control from the corporation.W. Dobson, Parlty. Rep. Preston, 33-42.
The Members for Lancaster were usually neighbouring landowners—Abraham Rawlinson was the only merchant to sit for the borough during this period. The Reynolds family had considerable influence, and it was on an agreement with Francis Reynolds that George Warren was first returned in 1758. The Cavendish interest was based on the estates which the family had inherited from Sir William Lowther.
There were no contests for Lancashire during this period. One seat was always held by a Stanley (apart from the years 1771-4), and the other by a country gentleman.
From 1754 to 1780 Clitheroe was a pocket borough of the Lister and Curzon families, who jointly held 53 out of its 102 burgages. But in 1780 Thomas Lister cheated his partner out of his share in the representation of the borough by refusing to agree to the conveyance of the joint burgages to nominal voters. Having thus set aside 53 of the burgages, Lister, who held 30 out of the remaining 49, was able to nominate to both seats; which he did, despite the protests of the Curzon family, for the remainder of this period.
Queenborough was under the patronage of the Admiralty and the Ordnance, each department recommending to one seat. Admission of new freemen belonged to the corporation, a body of seven which was effectively controlled by Government; and a large proportion of the freemen were employed by the Admiralty or the Ordnance. Local landowners, like Lord Middlesex, or admirals standing against the Government (Brett in 1774 and Parker in 1784) had little chance.
The ports and dockyards of Rochester and Chatham, and the Victualling Office, supplied an Admiralty interest, reinforced by the Customs and Excise; as a rule the Government could carry one seat only, which more often than not was filled by a naval officer. But there was also a local interest, especially strong if joined to that of some neighbouring country gentleman.Add. 32972, f. 64.
In 1792 Oldfield wrote about Canterbury:Boroughs, ii. 155. ‘This city is entirely independent in its election of Members of Parliament, and is neither under the influence or control of any patron or leading man.’ The dean and chapter, the Dissenters, town patricians, and neighbouring squires all had a certain influence in elections; but no one interest predominated, and a seat at Canterbury was held on an uncertain tenure. Most of the electors resided in the town or its neighbourhood.
At Maidstone Lord Aylesford and Lord Romney both had an old-established interest; there was a strong independent party, nurtured by the Dissenters (in 1809 estimated at nearly half the borough); and a minor Government interest from the dockyards at Rochester, Chatham, and Deptford.
Kimbolton and Hinchingbrooke, two of the three great Huntingdonshire houses or estates whose owners in the reign of Elizabeth I had ‘for long determined the county elections’,Neale, Eliz. House of Commons, 47. retained that primacy after having passed into the hands of new owners, the Dukes of Manchester and the Earls of Sandwich, younger branches of the Montagus of Boughton; and it was not only the size of the estates or the rank of their owners that determined this primacy: an element of local tradition seemed to enter into it.
