Commons 1790-1820

At the dissolution of 1790 neither sitting Member was directly beholden to Hugh Percy, 2nd Duke of Northumberland, whose family had controlled one seat since the 1760s. Sir William Middleton of Belsay had been returned at three successive general elections as the candidate of the independent gentlemen; and Charles Grey, elected in 1786 on the elevation to the peerage of Northumberland’s brother, was not an Alnwick nominee as such, although the duke must have at least acquiesced in his return.

Earl Fitzwilliam, the principal property owner, was unopposed parliamentary patron of this open borough throughout the period. He described Peterborough in 1796 as ‘a place where we have no trouble, but where we always pay great attention’. French Laurence, after his return, informed his patron, 16 Nov.

Despite its large electorate which increased during this period to over 1,300 voters and included a strong dissenting component, Northampton went to the poll only three times: the balance of interests and the memory of the ruinously expensive contest of 1768 were sufficient to discourage protracted struggles.Oldfield, Boroughs, i. 427; Add. 51573, Smith to Lady Holland, Tues.

Higham Ferrers was, to quote Oldfield, ‘under the sole influence and at the entire disposal of Earl Fitzwilliam; on which account a contest for the representation never happens’.Oldfield, Boroughs, i. 434. There was no contest between 1724 and 1832, when the borough was disfranchised.

No attempt was made in this period to seduce the corporation of Brackley from their patron Francis, 3rd Duke of Bridgwater, whose family the Egertons had been associated with the borough for nearly two centuries. The duke returned his cousin and coheir John William Egerton, and Samuel Haynes, the latter’s father-in-law, again in 1790: like him they were supporters of Pitt’s administration. Haynes retired late in 1802 in favour of the duke’s canal agent Bradshaw.

There had been no contest for the county since 1748 and its representation remained in the hands of the country gentlemen until 1806, despite the strength of the aristocratic landowners, who were evidently disinclined to dispute it.Oldfield, Rep. Hist. iv. 272; E. G. Forrester, Northants. Elections and Electioneering 1695-1832. In 1784, by a compromise, the Foxite Powys of Lilford was joined by a Pittite, Langham of Cottesbrooke. Sir James Langham informed Pitt, 4 Jan.

The 3rd Duke of Grafton, seated four miles away at Euston, was recorder of this corporation borough and his family had controlled it unopposed throughout the century. Since 1784, however, he had been politically less active and had no member of his immediate family whom he wished to return. In 1790, when one of his nominees died on the eve of dissolution and the other retired, his nomination to both seats was successfully challenged by the Catholic peer, Robert Edward, 9th Baron Petre.

Municipal politics continued to play an important part in Norwich parliamentary electionsB. D. Hayes ‘Pols. in Norf. 1750-1832’ (Camb. Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1957), 55, 234. The freeholder vote, much of it in the ‘country’, constituted about one-fifth of the electorate. and at times candidates for the corporation spent not much less than parliamentary candidates (about £4,000).Ibid. 432; Add. 37885, f.

On the face of it, the electoral arrangements for Lynn were a straightforward compromise of the nominations between two interests. The Walpoles, father and son, represented their long established interest. Sir Martin Browne Ffolkes represented (in the right of his wife) the former interest of Sir John Turner, 3rd Bt.^†, who in 1774 had been ousted by Crisp Molyneux.

Yarmouth was a flourishing port, with a steadily rising population and a large and venal electorate, many of them outvoters in London, Norwich and the dockyards of Chatham, Sheerness, Northfleet, Deptford and Blackwall. It was accepted that electors might claim two guineas a vote, but their price rose and in the keen contest of 1818, when 653 outvoters were fetched, douceurs of £20, £80 or even £100 were reported; though the outvote did not sway the outcome.C. J. Palmer, Hist. Gt. Yarmouth (1856), 224-35; B. D. Hayes, ‘Pols. in Norf. 1750-1832’ (Camb. Univ. Ph.D.