A curious feature of Carmarthenshire in the period is the migratory nature of the election, which moved from the county town to Rhiwradar, Llanfihangel,Cothy Bridge, and in 1689 even ‘the dwelling of Thomas Jones in Llangathan parish’. Both seats were dominated by the Vaughans of Golden Grove, who worked harmoniously with other branches of the family to preserve their influence. Between 1660 and 1689 the name of Vaughan was missing only twice from the list of Members.
The Vaughans of Trawscoed represented Cardiganshire for most of the period without opposition until 1689. On 16 May 1660 it was reported that the writs for both county and borough had miscarried. On the petition of the freeholders, new writs were issued, and the elections committee ordered to investigate the miscarriage; but no report was made. Sir Richard Pryse, a time-server, was elected, though only after another two months had elapsed. In 1661 John Vaughan, an inactive Royalist, was returned ‘unanimously, freely and indifferently’.
No polls are recorded in Caernarvonshire in this period, and the county gentry appear to have offered little resistance to the irruption of the Bulkeley interest from across the Menai Strait. The other notable feature of the period is the steady decline in the political weight carried by the knights of the shire. John Glynne, who represented the county in the Convention after holding high legal office in the Protectorate, was a national figure, loathed as much by London Royalists as in his native county.
No dominant interest can be discerned in Breconshire, and no less than six of the ten elections in the period resulted in the return of a non-resident. The Presbyterian Royalist, Sir William Lewis, who represented the county in 1660, lived in Hampshire, though most of his income was derived from Breconshire. The next general election was contested by two Royalists, Sir Herbert Price, a courtier who had been in exile, and Sir Henry Williams, a country gentleman already conspicuous as an enemy of ‘seditious preaching’.
The representation of Anglesey in this period was dominated by the Bulkeleys, except in the Cavalier Parliament. There was probably a contest in February 1679, but the name of the unsuccessful candidate is not known. As a Cavalier’s son Lord Bulkeley was ineligible under the Long Parliament ordinance at the general election of 1660; but he probably purchased the silence of possible objectors by giving his interest at Beaumaris to Griffith Bodurda.
The Cinque Ports had their own representative institutions, the Guestling and the Brotherhood, and from the 14th century seven of them regularly sent ’barons’ to the House of Commons. Seaford was restored to the franchaise in 1640 after a long lapse. Only Dover was of much economic significance, but the little towns afforded a ready haven to the victims of religious persecution on the Continent, and Rye in particular occupies a place in the annals of nonconformity. The period is marked by the persistent claim of the lord warden to nominate ’barons’.
Yorkshire was the largest constituency in England, and this made election contests so expensive that there was a marked reluctance on the part of candidates to go to the poll. Seven of the nine Members who sat as knight of the shire in this period were drawn from the West Riding, which predominated both in population and wealth. On 26 Mar.
Much of the political history of Worcestershire in this period can be told in terms of the rivalry between the royalist Sandys and Pakington families, on the one hand, and on the other the Presbyterian Foleys, who had recently acquired a fortune in the iron industry, and even more recently invested it in land. But as prominent Cavaliers neither Samuel Sandys nor his brother-in-law Sir John Pakington could contest the general election of 1660 under the Long Parliament ordinance.
Lord Ailesbury, who sat for the county in 1685 before succeeding to the peerage, commended the excellent practice in Wiltshire whereby the gentry selected two candidates at a preliminary meeting, and ‘they only meet at the place of election for form’s sake’. A rejected candidate would naturally prefer to contest one of the numerous borough seats rather than defy the wishes of his own class and put himself to the expense of a contested county election. No doubt the meeting aimed at preserving a rough geographical balance.
With the exception of Christopher Philipson, whose pretensions were much resented and repulsed on two occasions out of three, all the Westmorland Members in this period came from magnate families with a long parliamentary tradition. The Civil War record of the 4th Lord Wharton precluded his family from occupying a seat except in the two Conventions, and Roger North found the country interest represented by the more moderate Lowthers, who opposed the courtly Musgraves on every possible occasion.
