Commons 1790-1820

The dominant figure in county politics throughout this period was Thomas William Coke of Holkham: a Foxite Whig of boundless self-confidence, worth £20,000 a year, he could not stomach his exclusion from the county seat in 1784, as he was ‘not conscious of having done anything to forfeit his position’.Norf. Chron. 26 June 1790. His first object was to regain the seat, which he did with ease in 1790. Subsequently he aimed to secure the return of two Whigs for the county, which he achieved from 1797 to 1817, when a third attempt to contest this monopoly was successful.

Monmouth Boroughs remained under the control of the dukes of Beaufort throughout the period.E. E. Havill, ‘Parl. Rep. Mon. 1536-1832’ (Univ. of Wales MA thesis, 1949); R. D. Rees, ‘Parl. Rep. S. Wales 1790-1830’ (Reading Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1962), i. 259. They were in command of the close corporations of Monmouth and Usk.

Since the 5th Duke of Beaufort had purchased the Usk estate in 1771, he and the Morgan family of Tredegar possessed about equal estates in the county (said to be worth about £12,000 p.a. in 1795).W. T. Morgan, JNLW, x. (1957), 167; E. E. Havill, ‘Parl. Rep. Mon. 1536-1832’ (Univ. of Wales M. A. thesis, 1949); R. D. Rees, ‘Parl. Rep. S. Wales 1790-1830’ (Reading Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1962), i. 249; Farington Diary (Yale ed.), ii.

The Westminster electorate numbered about 16,000 in theory, but about 12,000 in practice. A significant proportion were members of the leisured classes and included many of the political and social elite. Below them in the social scale ranked a wide assortment of professional men, a numerically dominant mass of tradesmen, shopkeepers, craftsmen and skilled artisans and a relatively small number of poor artisans, menials and labourers. The violent potential of the unenfranchised mob made it a factor to be reckoned with.

The number of liverymen (i.e. freemen attached to the City companies and thereby entitled to vote) increased steadily in this period, though London still did not have as many voters, in practice, as Westminster. As Oldfield pointed out, if the franchise had been in the freemen at large the number of electors would have been ten times as great, and if it had been in the inhabitant householders it would have been 31,000.

Urban development and the increase in population in the second half of the 18th century had a marked effect on the electoral geography of Middlesex. In the census of 1801 the ‘out’-parishes, where urbanization had its most obvious impact, were extended to include Chiswick, Ealing, Edmonton, Tottenham, Enfield, Harrow, Twickenham, Staines and Uxbridge. The county was being opened up as a residential ‘dormitory’ for prosperous London merchants, and although the process had not gone far there had been a significant penetration of the country by the town.

The Cecils of Burghley, earls of Exeter and recorders of the borough since 1697, had controlled Stamford elections since 1734. Their nominations were not contested until 1809; nor did any opposition succeed until 1831.J. M. Lee ‘Stamford and the Cecils 1700-1885: a study in political control’ (Oxf. Univ. B. Litt.

Lincoln remained an open and expensive borough, despite the efforts of the neighbouring nobility and gentry to secure control over its representation. The freemen were eager to prevent any compromise among the former which was likely to minimize their say in elections, and, usually at the instigation of the London outvoters of whom there were nearly 200, encouraged a ‘third man’ to provide them with a contest.This draws on Sir J. W. F. Hill, Georgian Lincoln (1966), chs.

Since 1774, Charles Anderson Pelham, the future Lord Yarborough, who was the leading property owner at Grimsby and recorder of the borough, had returned both Members. His friends, the Blues, dominated the corporation. The rival faction, the Reds, of which the Clayton family were leaders, were eclipsed, and even in 1784 the best terms they could get were to accept one of Anderson Pelham’s nominees as their own, at their expense.

Although Grantham had not gone to the poll since 1772, it was listed by the Treasury as an open borough before the elections of 1790 and 1796, and at the latter election unquestionably became one. Previously, as Oldfield stated in 1792: ‘The Duke of Rutland and Lord Brownlow, from their property in the town, the contiguity of their seats, and their personal interest have the entire command of its representation’. Each patron returned his own relations.