Although as a rising spa and fashionable resort Bath had closer connexions with the great world than the ordinary West of England clothing town, all its Members in this period came from local gentry families. In 1660 the corporation, consisting of 20 common councilmen and eight aldermen, returned two Presbyterian Royalists, Alexander Popham and William Prynne, without opposition. On 18 Feb.
The chief interest in Shrewsbury was in the corporation, consisting of 24 aldermen and 48 common councilmen. The mayor, who acted as returning officer, was chosen annually from the aldermen. The corporation controlled the roll of freemen and hence the franchise. As usual the freedom could be obtained by birth, service, or purchase; counting only the first, there were said to be over a thousand freemen living in or near the borough. The inclusion of suburban liberties gave several country gentlemen estates within the borough boundaries.
The leading territorial interests in Wenlock were the Lawleys, who owned the Priory, the Welds of Willey, and the Foresters, as lords of Little Wenlock manor. In 1660 the Welds were disqualified as Cavaliers, and the Foresters were politically inactive until William Forester came of age. Thus Sir Francis Lawley was accompanied in the Convention by Thomas Whitmore, the recorder, a passive Royalist who had represented the borough with him in 1659.
Ludlow was the seat of the council in the marches of Wales, revived in 1661 and finally suppressed after the Revolution. Consequently the little town, with only 1,376 adult inhabitants in 1676, swarmed with lawyers, and even the sons of the local land-owning families were usually educated for that profession. All the candidates in this period except Sir Josiah Child came from the immediate neighbourhood, and all except Child, Somerset Fox, and Francis Herbert were barristers. No less than six of them became judges, probably a unique record.
The dominant interests in Bridgnorth at the Restoration were the Whitmores and Actons, both seated within three miles of the borough and related by marriage. Their politics were in agreement in 1660, and, probably by arrangement, Sir William Whitmore stood for the county while John Bennet, his brother-in-law and Sir Walter Acton were returned for Bridgnorth.
The chief interest in Bishop’s Castle lay in the corporation. The 15 common councilmen controlled the electoral roll, and annually elected a bailiff, who acted as returning officer. Between 1572 and 1690 this post was monopolized by four local families, the Oakeleys, the Warings, the Mores and the Masons. The lords of the manor do not seem to have exercised their interest during this period.
Although the poll figures suggest a slight preference by the electorate for resident dons, or ‘gremials’, most of the successful candidates were former members of the University. The Anglican and royalist opinions of the majority were not in doubt, even in 1660 when the Presbyterian vice-chancellor procured letters from George Monck in favour of William Lenthall, Speaker of the Long Parliament.
Polls survive in the municipal records for all the elections in this period except the last, and reveal the intense political activity in Oxford. Most successful candidates were nearby residents who had close ties with the city. In 1660 Oxford returned Lord Falkland, son of the royalist secretary of state, and an obscure Presbyterian resident, James Huxley, against the corporation candidates, Richard Croke, the deputy recorder, and John Nixon, one of the aldermen who had sat as a recruiter in the Long Parliament.
Edward Atkyns and Sir Thomas Spencer, both local residents and moderate Royalists in 1660, were returned to the Convention. Although Atkyns ‘gave unto this borough the first bell of the ring here, which cost £27’, he lost his seat to Sir William Fleetwood, the ranger of Woodstock Park, in 1661. The corporation was purged in 1662 and a new charter granted on 23 Aug. 1664, under which crown sanction was required for the appointment of high steward, recorder and town clerk.
The freemen of Banbury claimed the franchise in this period on only one occasion, and though the assistants were reckoned part of the corporation they voted only at mayoral elections. On this narrow franchise the borough showed little sign of its notorious Puritanism in its representation, though John Fiennes was reported elected in 1660.
