Cirencester was controlled by two Tory families, each returning one Member: the Bathursts, who as lords of the manor appointed the returning officer, and the Masters, who had property in the borough. Normally their nominees were unopposed but in 1722 the Duke of Wharton, having quarrelled with Bathurst, promised to pay the poet Edward Young for opposing Bathurst’s brother, which he did unsuccessfully, never recovering his expenses from Wharton.C. H. Parry Mem. of Rev.
The parties at Bristol, a large open constituency, were evenly balanced, the Whigs having the support of the corporation and the wealthiest inhabitants,Cholmondeley (Houghton) mss; Short Case of the Bristol Election (1734). while the Tories had the better organization. In 1715, after an eight-day poll, the Whig candidates were returned by the sheriff, though they had been defeated at the poll by their Tory opponents,J. Latimer, Annals of Bristol in 18th Cent. 108-9. who petitioned the House of Commons three years in succession without securing a hearing.
In 1715 the sitting Members for Maldon were two Tory lawyers, both local men: Thomas Bramston, whose family held the high stewardship of the borough, and John Comyns, who had sat for it in every Parliament but one in the previous reign. Both were re-elected after a contest but on petition the House of Commons unseated Comyns ‘for want of a qualification’, awarding the seat to one of the defeated Whig candidates, Samuel Tufnell.
The government interest at Harwich was based on the officers of the local customs and of the Harwich packet boats, the latter appointed by the Post Office. By giving these posts to members of the corporation the Government were usually able to secure the return of supporters. In 1715 the corporation returned two Whigs, Sir Philip Parker, a neighbouring landowner, and Thomas Heath, a London merchant, with no local connexions, who in 1717 were granted jointly a 31-year lease of the crown property in the town.Cal. Treas. Bks. xxxi.
Colchester was an open, corrupt, and expensive borough, usually represented by wealthy London merchants who had purchased Essex estates. Five of them— the two Rebows, Du Cane, Houblon and Olmius— were of Flemish or Dutch descent. Elections turned largely on the mayor, who was the returning officer, and without whose consent no new freemen could be created. Up to 1728 the Whigs monopolized the mayoralty and the representation of the borough. From 1728 to 1740 the Tories held the mayoralty, creating 83 freemen in 1728 and more in 1729.T. Cromwell, Hist. Colchester, ii.
The bishop, dean, and chapter of Durham exerted considerable influence in the city, which always returned local landowners. Under the Jacobite bishop, Lord Crew, whose name was sent to the Pretender in 1721 as a probable supporter in the event of a rising,Stuart mss 65/16. two Tories were unopposed in 1715; but from 1722, when the new Whig bishop, Talbot, nominated his son Charles, who was returned with a Tory by a big majority, each party took one seat.
The Government had a major interest at Weymouth and Melcombe Regis from the local customs service and the quarries at Portland. Under Walpole, George Bubb Dodington made use of his official position at the Treasury to strengthen his private interest in the borough.Sir Dudley Ryder’s diary, 9 Aug. 1740, Harrowby mss. Another important interest was that of the Tuckers, a Weymouth family, who for many years held the post of supervisor of the Portland quarries, carrying considerable electoral influence.
The Tory interest at Wareham was headed by the Pitts of Strathfieldsaye and Shroton, who were patrons of the living and owned the site of the priory. The lord of the manor in 1715 was General Thomas Erle, Whig, whose interest passed by marriage to his son-in-law, Sir Edward Ernle, in 1720 and to the latter’s son-in-law, Henry Drax, in 1729. Both seats were usually held by members of these families but from 1722 to 1734 the Pitts were ousted by strangers, apparently returned through Walpole’s interest with the corporation.
In 1738 Shaftesbury was described by Hutchins, the Dorset historian, as ‘a mercenary and ungrateful borough’. Lord Ilchester, who had represented it as Stephen Fox, wrote of it in 1747, as ‘more unwieldy than Hindon, made up of complicated interests with a sort of gentry that are troublesome’; and, in 1753, as ‘very troublesome and expensive’. Although the right of voting lay in the inhabitants, control of the 12-man corporation was important. Shortly before the general election of 1747 Ilchester wrote:
The ancient seaport and borough of Poole had a long and close connexion with the Newfoundland and later the American trade. Its representation was controlled by the corporation through the right of creating freemen, resident and non-resident. The corporation itself was dominated by a merchant oligarchy, who usually returned local landowners and merchants, all from 1715 government supporters. There was also a government interest represented in 1752 by 15 officials.John Masters to Joseph Gulston, 19 Nov.
