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.
The Walpole and Howard families continued to name a Member each throughout this period. Since 1779 their representatives in this electoral pact had been George, 3rd Earl of Orford, by now insane, whose faithful friend Charles Boone continued to sit on his interest, and the dowager Lady Andover.Oldfield, Hist. Boroughs, i. 409; Norf. RO, Howard mss HOW 742, Orford to Lady Andover, 22 Mar.
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.
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 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.
The Duke of Ancaster returned one Member, as usual, in 1790; and the corporation regained the seat they had lost to a nabob in 1784 for want of a ready candidate by putting up Thomas Fydell, a merchant banker of their number who had been three times mayor.Oldfield, Rep. Hist. iv. 160. The nabob Watherston did not offer again and another nabob, Gen. Richard Smith, who appeared as a third man, fared badly at the poll. His and an electors’ petition against the return were not pursued.
