Kent

<p>Queenborough was under the patronage of the Admiralty and the Ordnance, each department recommending to one seat. Admission of new freemen belonged to the corporation, a body of seven which was effectively controlled by Government; and a large proportion of the freemen were employed by the Admiralty or the Ordnance. Local landowners, like Lord Middlesex, or admirals standing against the Government (Brett in 1774 and Parker in 1784) had little chance.</p>

<p>The ports and dockyards of Rochester and Chatham, and the Victualling Office, supplied an Admiralty interest, reinforced by the Customs and Excise; as a rule the Government could carry one seat only, which more often than not was filled by a naval officer. But there was also a local interest, especially strong if joined to that of some neighbouring country gentleman.<fn>Add. 32972, f. 64.</fn></p><p>From 1754 to 1765 Government candidates carried both seats.

<p>In 1792 Oldfield wrote about Canterbury:<fn><em>Boroughs,</em> ii. 155.</fn> ‘This city is entirely independent in its election of Members of Parliament, and is neither under the influence or control of any patron or leading man.’ The dean and chapter, the Dissenters, town patricians, and neighbouring squires all had a certain influence in elections; but no one interest predominated, and a seat at Canterbury was held on an uncertain tenure.

<p>At Maidstone Lord Aylesford and Lord Romney both had an old-established interest; there was a strong independent party, nurtured by the Dissenters (in 1809 estimated at nearly half the borough); and a minor Government interest from the dockyards at Rochester, Chatham, and Deptford.</p><p>At every election between 1754 and 1777 the Aylesford interest returned a candidate, and the Romney interest in 1754, 1761, and 1768. In 1780 the Aylesford candidate was beaten and both Members were local independent men: Mann a landowner, and Taylor a manufacturer.

<p>The presence of the naval dockyard and the victualling office gave the Admiralty a permanent interest at Rochester, but in one seat only was it secure and contests were frequent. Sir Charles Middleton, the Admiralty Member in the Parliament of 1784, complained to ministers that the freemen had ‘reaped very little advantage from the being the side of government’,<fn>PRO 30/8/173, ff.

<p>The arrangement whereby the Admiralty and the Ordnance returned a Member each was maintained without difficulty until 1802. Management of the borough was in the hands of the latter department. The 3rd Duke of Richmond, then master general of the Ordnance, informed Pitt, 22 June 1790, ‘Queenborough is over as we would wish though there was a contest’.<fn>PRO 30/8/171, f.

<p>Maidstone was an open borough with a reputation for venality. Oldfield stated that successful candidates spent between £3,000 and £5,000 per election and contests were insisted upon. Sir Matthew Bloxam had spent £15,000 by 1802, in four elections.<fn><em>Rep. Hist.</em> iv. 76; Spencer mss, Bloxam to Spencer, 30 July 1802.</fn> Over a third of the electors were non-resident, but no poll lasted more than three days. There were two parties in the town, Red (or Purple) and Blue, the former ministerialist and the latter independent.

<p>Of nine Members elected for Canterbury in this period only one, Lushington, cut any kind of figure in the House, for all the fierce contests that they faced to get there. Only citizens or Kentish gentry won the seats, and as over two-fifths of the large and growing electorate were non-resident, candidates could expect much expense. This was exacerbated, as at Maidstone, by the party rivalry between Reds and Blues, the latter supporting the Whigs.

<p>Owing to the proximity of Chatham dockyard the Admiralty was the largest employer at Rochester, usually nominating both Members, one of whom was always an admiral. Opposition took the form of demanding that the town should be represented by two admirals. In 1734 Admiral <a href="/landingpage/58562" title="Sir John Norris" class="link">Sir John Norris</a> was put up unsuccessfully without his consent against Newcastle’s brother-in-law, David Polhill, who wrote to Walpole, 5 Sept.

<p>The chief interest at Queenborough was that of the Admiralty, on whom the inhabitants depended for employment. Elections were managed by the corporation through their power of creating new freemen. Under George I all the Members returned were government supporters, but it was not till the next reign that the Administration gained complete control of the borough.</p><p>In 1727 Sprig Manesty, a placeman, shared the representation unopposed with John Crowley, a Tory ironmaster, both of whom died next year.