Somerset

The strong Dissenting interest in Bridgwater naturally produced intermittent bouts of political infighting between Whigs and High Churchmen, but parliamentary elections had largely ceased to be occasions for bringing these tensions into the open. The corporation of 24, which had the strongest hand in controlling a modestly sized scot-and-lot electorate, carefully cultivated links with members of the local gentry, but nevertheless maintained a jealous eye over the borough’s parliamentary seats, and during these years promoted the election of several of its senior members.

By the last decade of the 17th century Bath was already a popular place of resort, but the city’s political affairs and its government were firmly in the hands of men of local standing. The franchise was the preserve of the 30-strong corporation, with no aristocratic influence being exerted until 1710. The candidates were usually members of the civic elite or of the local gentry, and invariably it was from the latter that the city’s representatives were chosen.

Much depended at Wells on control of the corporation, which could manipulate the franchise by creating honorary freemen. Local families had most influence, and during this period the Tudways came close to being patrons.

Throughout this period the natural interest at Minehead belonged to Henry Fownes Luttrell, who, through his marriage to the heiress of the Luttrell family, had inherited Dunster Castle, an estate in Somerset, and the lordship of the manor of Minehead (with the right of appointing the returning officer). But that interest had been much neglected, and at the general election of 1747 Luttrell had failed to secure the return of his candidate.

Taunton was an open borough, and contests were frequent and violent. Dissenters formed a large part of the population and had considerable influence. In 1754 Lord Egremont had the chief interest; and by alliance with the Dissenters, and having the support of Government, controlled one seat. The other was usually filled by a local man, and there was keen rivalry between the Dissenters in the town and the neighbouring country gentlemen.

Ilchester was a venal borough, with an electorate described by Francis Fane in 1756 as ‘poor and corrupt, without honour, morals, or attachment to any man or party’.Add. 32867, f. 474. The election of 1774 was declared void because of bribery, and John Harcourt was unseated in 1786 because of ‘gross and illegal’ malpractices by the returning officer. For most of this period its patron was Thomas Lockyer, but by 1774 his hold on the borough seems to have become less complete.

Basically Milborne Port was a scot and lot borough, but the choice of returning officers was the result of a complicated procedure which invited contention. There were nine capital burgesses or bailiffs, the holders of ancient tenements, two of whom in rotation appointed returning officers. In 1754 four of these tenements were owned by Thomas Medlycott and five by Edward Walter: together, therefore, they controlled the returning officers, and since each owned a good deal of property in the borough, in effect they controlled its representation.

In 1761, when William Pitt was returned a second time for Bath, he paid tribute to ‘a city ranked among the most ancient and most considerable in the kingdom, and justly famed for its integrity, independence, and zeal for the public good’.Pitt to the corporation of Bath, 12 Apr. 1761, Chatham mss. The corporation consisted for the most part of country gentlemen and substantial tradesmen, proud of their independence and integrity; and the Members had either strong local connexions, or were national figures.

George Bubb Dodington sat for Bridgwater 1722-1754 on an interest inherited from his uncle, George Dodington, who had represented the borough 1708-1713 and 1715-20. The Pouletts of Hinton St. George held one seat 1741-52, 1741-52, when, owing to divisions in the family, they lost it to Robert Balch, whose grandfather and great-grandfather had represented Bridgwater in the 17th century. From about 1750 Lord Egmont began to cultivate an interest. These were the chief forces in the politics of Bridgwater at the general election of 1754.

The corporation effectively controlled Wells, most of the freemen being outvoters.Oldfield, Boroughs, ii. 50; Rep. Hist. iv. 424. The leading interest lay in the Tudway family, which occupied one seat continuously from 1761 to 1830: Clement Tudway, the recorder, for 54 years, and his nephew from 1815 to 1830. The other seat was competed for by the local gentry, but for most of this period was occupied by Charles Taylor, son of a former Member. By July 1795 he was ‘unanimously approved’ as future Member, but his tenure was sometimes challenged.