Oldfield wrote about Huntingdon in 1792:Boroughs, ii. 143.
The interest of the Earl of Sandwich is so powerful as always to return two Members; and this he effects, not by weight of property, for his Lordship has but one house in the whole town, but by his popularity, and the obligations which he was enabled to confer upon some of his principal friends during his connexion with Lord North’s Administration.
Kent was one of the largest of the county constituencies, and its independence was jealously guarded. The Duke of Dorset, the leading peer in the county, had considerable influence, and there was a Government interest, based on the revenue officers in the ports; but neither was effective without support from the country gentlemen. It was the custom to elect one Member from east Kent and the other from west Kent.
Hertford was an independent borough, generally reckoned one of the most uncorrupt in the kingdom. ‘The Dissenting interest is very considerable there’, wrote Paul Feilde in 1769,Add. 35639, f. 124. particularly the Quakers. The representatives were nearly all drawn from local gentry; and the leading families concerned in the borough were the Harrisons of Balls Park, the Cowpers of Panshanger, the Calverts, and the Dimsdale and Brassey families. But almost any substantial Hertfordshire country gentleman would have had a chance.
The chief interest in the borough was in the Spencer family, who had inherited an estate near and in St. Albans from Sarah, Duchess of Marlborough, and in the Grimston family of Gorhambury, two miles from the borough. Lord Salisbury, at Hatfield only four miles from St. Albans, had some influence; and so had James West, who during the 27 years he represented the borough built up an interest of his own. A good many town notables carried weight; and there was also a fairly large venal vote.
Weobley had a complicated franchise, akin to that of a burgage borough. About 1750 the leading interests were in Lord Weymouth, lord of the manor, who nominated the returning officer, and Mansell Powell, a shady attorney, who owned a majority of the vote houses. In the first half of the century the borough was much disputed, and there was a strong party bent on preventing it becoming close. Between 1750 and 1754 Weymouth, by his purchase of Powell’s vote houses, gained a commanding interest; which was confirmed at the general election of 1754.
Oldfield wrote in 1792 that Hertfordshire possessed the ‘singular advantage of maintaining its independence’. There was a number of aristocratic families, with considerable influence in elections, but none of sufficient weight to dominate the county. Its representatives were nearly all substantial country gentlemen, and during this period it was the most contested county in England. There was a large Dissenting element in the population, but it is not easy to trace any pattern in county politics.
Hereford was an independent constituency, and preferred local men to strangers. The leading interest was in the Scudamore family, who held at least one seat throughout this period. Next came that of the Symons family. Others who had some interest were Lord Oxford, Lord Bateman, the Cornewalls of Moccas Court, and the Foleys.
At Leominster, which was reputedly very open, several neighbouring landowning families seated within a radius of about five miles from the borough had an interest. The Coningsbys of Hampton Court, whose heiress married Charles Hanbury Williams, had represented Leominster in the first half of the eighteenth century as Whigs, the Harleys as Tories. But no family could obtain a permanent, still less an exclusive, hold on the borough. If at Leominster ‘two brothers were to stand, they must be clear of each other’.Somerset Davies, receiver of the land tax for Shropshire, to Ld.
The leading interests in Herefordshire were in the Harleys, Earls of Oxford, the Foleys of Stoke Edith, and the Cornewalls of Moccas Court. United, they dominated the county, as in 1754. The elections of 1774 and 1776 were struggles for supremacy between themselves. Thomas Harley, defeated in 1774 by a Foley and a Cornewall, was successful in 1776 against a candidate not of either family but having the support of both.
Stockbridge was a venal borough. In 1754 Robert Henley (later Lord Northington) managed the election, at least for one seat (of George Hay). But on 23 Nov. 1756, over Hay’s re-election, Henry Fox sent the following account of Stockbridge to the Duke of Bedford:Bedford mss 32, f. 107.
