Commons 1790-1820

The prevailing interest at Wenlock was that of the Forester family, of Willey Park nearby, who had represented the borough in Henry VIII’s reign and did so virtually without a break from 1688 until 1885. In 1790 George Forester retired after 30 years’ service and his cousin and heir at law Cecil Forester succeeded him for the next 30 years. The other seat was held by the Bridgeman family, second in point of influence, who collaborated with the Foresters, and like them, after going over to administration with the Portland Whigs, supported the government of the day.

The local ‘gentlemen of fortune’ continued to represent Shrewsbury throughout this period. None of them could command the representation, although Sir William Pulteney of Shrewsbury Castle was perfectly secure in his seat until his death in 1805.Oldfield, Boroughs, ii. 29; Rep. Hist. iv. 375. The other seat had been held since 1784 by John Hill, the younger brother of the county Member Sir Richard, who possessed a strong interest in the borough.

The Clive family had absorbed by purchase (1770) and subsequently by marriage (1784) the interest of the Herberts of Powis Castle at Ludlow. They returned one Member from 1790 to 1806 and both thereafter. Richard Payne Knight, the other Member, a local country gentleman with a seat six miles away, had been introduced in 1784 with Lord Powis’s concurrence rather than, as Oldfield would have it, ‘on the independent interest of the town’.Salop RO, Ludlow corpn. mss 356, Davies to Kinnersley, 20 Dec. 1783, Salway to same, 9 Jan. 1784; Oldfield, Hist. Boroughs, ii.

The Whitmore family of Apley, recorders of Bridgnorth continuously since 1747, who had, as Pitt was informed in 1795, ‘represented the borough from the strongest natural interest for many generations’, returned one Member throughout this period; and both in 1820, not for the first time. Isaac Hawkins Browne, who had headed the poll in the contest of 1784, was a neighbouring country gentleman connected with the Birmingham industrial interest, whom the Whitmores accepted readily as their colleague. In 1790 a joint address was issued, ‘to preclude even the shadow of an opposition’.

Bishop’s Castle was the only pocket borough in Shropshire where the patron’s hold was effectively challenged and, briefly, undermined in this period. Since 1768 it had been in the pocket of the Clive family, the principal proprietors in the borough; and the Treasury classed it as a ‘close’ borough in 1795 (though not in 1788). In 1790 Edward, Lord Clive again returned his uncle and former mentor, William Clive of Styche, with Henry Strachey, another old friend and connexion of the family.

The county representation remained in the hands of the country gentlemen, who insisted on their independence and vetoed election expenses. There had been no contest since 1722 and the peace of the county was not effectively disturbed in this period. The conduct of Sir Richard Hill in Parliament and in the borough of Shrewsbury exposed him temporarily to the threat of opposition.

Since 1747 the Noels, earls of Gainsborough, and the Cecils, earls of Exeter, had combined to dominate the county representation, to the exclusion of the Finches, earls of Winchilsea, who did not challenge them after 1761. All three families were short of personal representatives. The 9th Earl of Winchilsea, lord-lieutenant of the county and a courtier, was unmarried.

The representation of the university was a much coveted honour reserved time out of mind for ‘that good old sort ... an independent country gentleman, a true friend to Church and King, unconnected with any party, of a good old family’. In this respect Oxford was anxious not to ‘sink’ to the level of Cambridge, where ministerial influence was held to prevail, and looked to Midland squires ‘like the Palmers, the Pages, the Newdigates, the Dolbens’ for its Members.

Oxford was one of the larger freeman boroughs: in 1796 890 voted in three days, in 1802 1,186 in three days, in 1806 1,353 in six days, in 1812 1,538 in nine days and in 1818 1,143 in 4 days. In 1790 it was claimed that ‘the non-resident voters ... comprise above a moiety of the electors, of which almost 300 reside in and about London, a very great number at Bristol, Witney, Abingdon, Birmingham etc. etc. who will support the person who will oppose the chamber and they will be very considerably aided in the city’.Portland mss Pw2F15; Add. 37880, f. 197; VCH Oxon. iv.

Woodstock, ‘adjoining to the wall of Blenheim park’, had offered no opposition to the dukes of Marlborough’s patronage since 1727.Oldfield, Boroughs, ii. 23; Rep. Hist. iv. 362. The 4th Duke continued to nominate members of his family and friends, expecting them, like himself, to support the government of the day. His neighbour and connexion by marriage Sir Henry Watkin Dashwood, a ruined man who had to be in Parliament, was Member from 1784 until 1820. The other seat was intended for his family, if and when eligible.