There was no one exclusive patron, but neighbouring squires had a natural interest in the borough: in the first place George Hunt of Lanhydrock, heir to the Robartes family; Thomas Pitt, sen. and jun., of Boconnoc; and Christopher Treise and his nephew John Morshead, of Lavethan. The Hunt family held one seat throughout the period 1754-90; but their hold was not absolute. The last attempt within this period to assert the Boconnoc interest was made at the by-election of 1762.
The last election before 1772 to go to the poll was in 1710. Both Sir Robert Walpole and Henry Pelham discouraged giving any opposition to the Tory country gentlemen in the choice of knights of the shire for fear of their retaliating in the boroughs; and the representation of the county remained uncontested in the inter-married Tory families of Carew, Molesworth, St. Aubyn and Buller. An attempt to break through their quasi-monopoly was made in 1753 when Admiral Edward Boscawen promoted a third Tory candidate, Robert Hoblyn, who, however, was soon withdrawn.See BOSCAWEN, Hon.
The Grosvenor family, seated at Eaton Hall, four miles from Chester, had considerable influence in the corporation; and their record of parliamentary service to the borough was almost unique: between 1715 and 1874 they held one seat without a break, and for 42 out of these 159 years both seats.
But there was always an independent party ready to oppose Grosvenor domination. Walter Thomas, one of its leaders, wrote to the Duke of Newcastle on 18 Aug. 1755:Add. 32858, f. 201.
Cheshire contained only one borough which sent Members to Parliament, and the county representation was monopolized by the country gentlemen.
In 1754 the politics of the university of Cambridge were those of its chancellor, the Duke of Newcastle. Newcastle devoted special attention to Cambridge affairs, concerned himself with the details of university administration and appointments, and employed the ecclesiastical influence of the Crown to strengthen his position in the university. Cambridge was the Whig university, and as far as its parliamentary representation was concerned little better than one of Newcastle’s boroughs.
The corporation, an oligarchical body, self-recruiting under a set of intricate rules, listed under the banners of neighbouring landowners. About 1754 the dominant parliamentary influence was with the Bromleys of Horseheath; and from about 1760 with the Yorkes of Wimpole, till Mortlock and the Rutland family captured the borough in the 1780’s. Between 1737 and 1774 elections were uncontested, and the 1st and 2nd Lord Montfort, for a time with the help of Lord Dupplin, managed the borough for the Government.
Cambridgeshire was dominated by the aristocratic families of Yorke and Manners. ‘I know of no county in England’, wrote the Bishop of Ely, ‘where there is so great a scarcity of gentlemen fit to represent a county as in Cambridgeshire.’Add. 35680, f. 250. The sitting Members at the dissolution in 1754 were Philip Yorke (subsequently Viscount Royston), and Soame Jenyns, a client of the Yorkes. But when Lord Granby, heir to the dukedom of Rutland, declared himself a candidate, Jenyns withdrew, and Yorke and Granby were returned unopposed, as also at the general election of 1761.
In 1754 Lord Verney, a large property owner at Wendover, was the patron of the borough. According to Oldfield, his tenants lived rent-free ‘on condition of giving their votes to such gentlemen as his Lordship should nominate’. Verney was careless and easy-going, and in 1768 an opposition was declared against him. Here is the story as told by Oldfield:
Marlow was venal, expensive, and faithless. During this period every election save one was contested; and three out of the eight Members who represented the borough were rejected after having sat for one Parliament only.
The strongest interest was in the Clayton family of Harleyford, two miles from Marlow. ‘Mr. Clayton stands very well here’, wrote Robinson in his survey for the general election of 1780—almost the only Member in this period of whom so much could be said.
Chipping Wycombe was controlled by the Wallers of Beaconsfield and the Earl of Shelburne, each patron recommending to one seat. The Wallers were an old Buckinghamshire family; Lord Shelburne’s interest was derived from his inheritance of the Petty property in Buckinghamshire. The patrons seem to have worked amicably together, and all elections during this period were uncontested.
