The representation of Thetford was controlled by the owner of the adjoining estate of Euston. In 1715 Euston belonged to the dowager Duchess of Grafton, whose second husband, Sir Thomas Hanmer, nominated two Tories at that election. From 1722 both Members were Whigs, nominated by her son, the 2nd Duke of Grafton, to whom the estate passed on her death in 1723.
Norwich, which claimed to be the second city in the kingdom, was governed by the mayor, sheriffs, citizens, and commonalty in common council assembled, consisting of twenty-four aldermen, sitting for life, and sixty common councillors, elected annually by the resident freemen. There was also a court of mayoralty, made up of the mayor, sheriffs, and aldermen, sitting by themselves and combining legislative, executive, and judicial functions. The court of mayoralty or, as it was sometimes called, of aldermen, was Whig and the common council Tory at George I’s accession.
Except in 1715, when one Tory was returned, the representation of Yarmouth was monopolized by the Townshends and Walpoles, each family providing one Member. When in 1732 Sir Robert Walpole notified the mayor of Yarmouth that he proposed to put up his son, Edward, vice his brother, ‘old’ Horace, at the next general election, the corporation unanimously expressed their thanks for this ‘extraordinary favour’.C. J. Palmer, Great Yarmouth, ii.
In 1715 one seat at Castle Rising was controlled by Walpole, whose father had purchased 25 burgages there,H. L. Bradfer-Lawrence, ‘Castle Rising and the Walpoles’, in A Supplement to Blomefield’s Norfolk, 33-34. the other by Lady Diana Feilding, the lord of the manor, which she had inherited from her first husband, Thomas Howard, M.P.
Monmouth was under the sway of the dukes of Beaufort, who had a strong interest in all its three constituent boroughs. In Monmouth the Duke controlled the council of 15 life-members; in Usk he was lord of the manor, appointing the burgesses through the recorder; in Newport, where he was lord of the borough, his steward nominated the mayor from two candidates chosen by the aldermen.
Westminster, wrote the 2nd Lord Egmont, who sat for it as Lord Perceval,
consists of the greatest number of votes in the whole kingdom, excepting only the county of York; for it contains above 16,000 houses, which are of such a rent as to be charged to the church and poor, and consequently to entitle the possessors to vote. It is true, that many of these being untenanted, inhabited by women, or by persons not qualified, or able, the number is reduced to about 9,000, who may be presumed to vote at any contested election.
Elections in London were comparatively democratic, owing to the size and character of the electorate, which consisted mainly of small merchants, shopkeepers, and master craftsmen. The Government had a certain amount of influence through the number of voters who were
In 1715 the representation of Stamford was shared between two Tory families, each returning one Member: the Berties of Uffington, two miles from the borough; and the Cecils, earls of Exeter, ‘of Burghley House by Stamford town’. By 1727 the Earl of Exeter had increased his interest sufficiently to capture both seats, ousting the Berties in the person of Charles Bertie. In 1734 the Exeter interest was challenged by Savile Cust, the uncle of Sir John Cust, whose family formerly had considerable influence in Stamford.J.
Lincoln was an open borough, returning neighbouring country gentlemen. The most important Whig interests were those of the Monsons of Burton, two miles away, who held one seat almost continuously 1722-68, and of Sir Thomas Lumley Saunderson, who in 1723 inherited estates in the county. In 1727 Sir John Monson, who was standing for re-election, told Newcastle that
Grimsby was a venal borough, the resort of shady business men, including a strong South Sea contingent— Arthur Moore, expelled from his South Sea directorship in 1714; Sir Robert Chaplin, expelled from the House of Commons for his complicity in the South Sea scandal; John Gore, another guilty but less seriously implicated director, and his brother-in-law, Charles Pelham; Robert Knight, John Page, and Benjamin Collyer, respectively the son, son-in-law, and brother-in-law of Robert Knight, the absconding cashier of the Company.
