The general election of 1660 was principally a trial of strength between the two knights of the shire in Richard Cromwell’s Parliament, Sir Horatio Townshend, a key figure in royalist conspiracy, and Sir William Doyley, an opportunist who was equally ready to return to his former allegiance. Townshend was partnered by Lord Cramond, whose father had died in a parliamentary prison early in the Civil War.
Monmouth itself was regarded as dependent on the Raglan Castle interest, but the contributory boroughs were less subservient, though their rights were disputable. No return survives for 1660, when Sir Trevor Williams, subsequently a leading opponent of the Somersets, was elected. His interest was strongest in Usk, and in 1661 Sir George Probert was returned by the mayor, bailiffs and ‘burgesses’ of the county town alone.
The Restoration came early to Monmouthshire, Sir Trevor Williams inducing the militia to declare for the King even before the general election of 1660, when Lord Herbert, the effective head of the Raglan family, was returned with William Morgan, the heir to the Tredegar estate. There was probably no contest then or in 1661, but the remainder of the period was dominated by the uneasy relation between the Raglan interest and the county gentry.
The city of Westminster, as the administrative capital of the kingdom, the principal residence of the sovereign, and the usual venue of Parliament, enjoyed a peculiar status. The dean of Westminster appointed a high steward, who for most of the period was the loyal Duke of Ormonde, and together they nominated the corporation, consisting of 12 ‘burgesses’ and 12 assistants, and the high bailiff, who acted as returning officer. The high steward also appointed a deputy for judicial purposes.
Thanks to the diary of Samuel Pepys no period of London history is better known than the years of the Restoration, which had indeed come about through a tax-payers’ revolt against the Rump, in alliance with the well-disciplined forces of George Monck.
Although Middlesex was too large and popular a constituency to allow for its being amenable to patronage, it is clear that the protection provided by the Duke of Buckingham and Lord Grey of Warke was an important factor in the exclusionist successes in 1679-81. The conduct of the elections by the elected sheriffs of London also favoured radical candidates. But the results in 1660 and 1689 suggest that there was normally a majority for more cautious policies.
The principal interest at Stamford lay with the Cecil earls of Exeter, whose vast Elizabethan mansion at Burleigh dominated the town. They owned much property in the borough, including the feefarm rent and the advowsons of five parish churches. Their tenure of the recordership was interrupted by the Interregnum, but normally gave them considerable influence over the corporation, which in turn controlled the freeman roll.
Under a charter of 1628 the corporation of Lincoln consisted of the mayor, 12 aldermen, two sheriffs (who acted as returning officers) and between 25 and 30 common councilmen. The freedom of the city appears to have been liberally granted at times of political excitement, and was doubtless a factor in the long domination of Sir Thomas Meres and the Monson family from the Restoration to the Revolution.
Grimsby, formerly a flourishing port, had by the Civil War ‘but one poor coal-ship and scarce mariners to man her’, according to one of her representatives. The corporation were usually happy to sell the freedom of the borough, which carried with it the franchise, at £10 a time, though a parliamentary candidate might have to pay four times as much and the constituency was beginning to acquire a reputation for venality. Nevertheless all the Members were Lincolnshire men by birth, residence, or property; but they were drawn from no less than ten different gentry families.
Under the charter of 1631 the corporation of Grantham consisted of an alderman, who acted as returning officer, 12 ‘comburgesses’, and 12 ‘second burgesses’. It controlled the freeman roll, and hence the franchise. The medieval Thorold family was resident in several of its branches in and near the borough, but their interest did not predominate in this period owing to widespread recusancy and to financial difficulties in the senior branch. More persistent interests were exercised by two families of comparatively recent origin.
