Wallingford remained essentially venal, but during the first half of the period it was virtually in the pocket of Sir Francis Sykes, a rich nabob, who was said to have bought up most of the property in the borough. In April 1789 it was reported that his colleague, Thomas Aubrey, returned in 1784 on the declining interest of the 4th Earl of Abingdon, the high steward, would have to look elsewhere at the dissolution, despite his willingness to pay the going rate.
The absence of a dominant landed or manufacturing interest left Reading open, but only men with strong local connexions were likely to succeed. Earlier the borough had been notoriously venal, and after an apparent interlude of comparative respectability in the 1780s and 1790s, corruption, in the form of lavish treating, ostentatious municipal beneficence and widespread commercial racketeering, grew rife again.
Charles Knight, editor of the Windsor Express, described ‘Royal Windsor’ in the early 19th century as
a country town of the narrowest range of observation, and the tiniest circle of knowledge. The people vegetated, although living amidst a continual din of royalty going to and fro ... The ‘loyal’ or the ‘independent’ voters ... were fierce in their partisanship, but there was no real principle at the root of their differences.
In 1796 Charles Abbot, a native of Abingdon, described its electoral composition as follows:
The electors ... are about 240 scot and lot; about 70 of them take money. About half of the 240 go with the corporation. The dissenters, headed by the Tomkiss’s [Tomkinses] and Fletchers, are the next best interest. Child, the brewer, and his friends, have also considerable weight. If all three sets can agree, they carry the place in defiance of all opposition.
The influence of the Russell family at Bedford, overpowered by Sir Robert Bernard and the corporation in 1769, had only been strong enough, since the death of John, 4th Duke of Bedford in 1771, when Bernard became recorder, to supply reinforcement to the interest established by Samuel Whitbread I, the wealthy brewer, who became a staunch supporter of Pitt.
This seat depended on the power of the corporation of New Radnor to create freemen in the capital borough, and on that of the steward of the King’s manors to create freemen, as well non-resident as resident, in three of the contributory boroughs, Rhayader, Knighton and Knucklas.
Pembroke was controlled by the Owens of Orielton, Whigs, who always returned members of their family or nominees. In 1715 a Tory, Sir George Barlow, encouraged by a House of Commons decision in 1712 that the borough of Wiston had the right to vote in Pembroke elections,CJ, xvii. 108-10. which weakened the Owen interest, unsuccessfully challenged Thomas Ferrers, the Owen candidate. Both sides created new freemen, but Barlow failed in his attempt to poll the Wiston voters.CJ, xviii. 37; NLW, Gen. Coll.
After the death of John Laugharne, who sat for Haverfordwest as a Tory throughout Anne’s reign, the borough was usually represented by members of three local families, Barlow of Slebech, Philipps of Picton Castle and Edwardes of Johnston. The only exception was John Barlow of Lawrenny, a Whig, who though defeated at the poll, was awarded the seat on petition at the by-election following Laugharne’s death in 1715.
Until 1727 this constituency was dominated by an alliance of the Tory patrons who controlled the three out-boroughs. Llanidloes lay in the Llwydiarth estate, inherited by Watkin Williams Wynn from Edward Vaughan in 1718; Welshpool and Llanfyllin in that of Powis Castle; Montgomery, the shire town, was controlled by the Whig Herberts of Oakley Park, who challenged the Tory interest represented by John Pugh in 1715 and 1722. On Pugh’s retirement in 1727 there was a double return.
The eight boroughs were controlled by four Tory patrons, as lords of the respective manors: Swansea and Loughor by the dukes of Beaufort; Neath and Aberavon by the Mackworths of Gnoll; Kenfig by the Mansels of Margam; and Cardiff, Cowbridge and Llantrisant by the Windsors of Cardiff Castle. The dominant interest was Lord Windsor’s, but until his son, Herbert, came of age, and took the seat in 1734, he acquiesced in the nominations of the Mansels, who since 1689 had controlled the representation, with the consent of the other patrons.Ll. B. John, ‘Parl. Rep. Glam. 1536-1832’ (Univ.
