Brackley was always counted as a pocket borough of the Duke of Bridgwater. In 1754 Bridgwater, a minor, was on the grand tour, and his affairs were managed by his uncle the Duke of Bedford. At Brackley a complete stranger, Thomas Humberston, bribed a majority of the corporation into promising him single votes. Bedford, with Dickinson and Vernon, the Bridgwater candidates, went down to try and retrieve the situation.
Earl Fitzwilliam, the principal property owner, was unopposed parliamentary patron of this open borough throughout the period. He described Peterborough in 1796 as ‘a place where we have no trouble, but where we always pay great attention’. French Laurence, after his return, informed his patron, 16 Nov.
Despite its large electorate which increased during this period to over 1,300 voters and included a strong dissenting component, Northampton went to the poll only three times: the balance of interests and the memory of the ruinously expensive contest of 1768 were sufficient to discourage protracted struggles.Oldfield, Boroughs, i. 427; Add. 51573, Smith to Lady Holland, Tues.
Higham Ferrers was, to quote Oldfield, ‘under the sole influence and at the entire disposal of Earl Fitzwilliam; on which account a contest for the representation never happens’.Oldfield, Boroughs, i. 434. There was no contest between 1724 and 1832, when the borough was disfranchised.
No attempt was made in this period to seduce the corporation of Brackley from their patron Francis, 3rd Duke of Bridgwater, whose family the Egertons had been associated with the borough for nearly two centuries. The duke returned his cousin and coheir John William Egerton, and Samuel Haynes, the latter’s father-in-law, again in 1790: like him they were supporters of Pitt’s administration. Haynes retired late in 1802 in favour of the duke’s canal agent Bradshaw.
Under George I the chief interest at Peterborough was in its Whig custos rotulorum, the 2nd Earl Fitzwilliam [I] of Milton, 3½ miles from the city, which he represented from 1710 till his death in 1728. During this period the other seat was held by Charles Parker, of a Tory town family, till 1722, when he was defeated by Sidney Wortley, formerly Montagu, a wealthy Whig coal owner, M.P. Peterborough 1698-1710. The dean and chapter, a pro-government body, appointed the returning officer.
Northampton politics were dominated by two neighbouring families, the Montagus of Horton, earls of Halifax, and the Comptons of Castle Ashby, earls of Northampton. The corporation were an important factor from the power of the mayor and bailiffs as returning officers. In 1715 their patron was the Earl of Halifax, whose family held one seat in every Parliament from 1705 to 1734. The other seat was held by a Tory, William Wykes. In 1722 Wykes was ousted by William Wilmer, a Whig sponsored by Halifax, who rejected a Tory suggestion that he should ‘let his brother and Mr.
Brackley, a town of about 250 houses, was controlled by the dukes of Bridgwater, the lords of the manor, which their family acquired by marriage in 1597. The franchise was vested in the corporation, consisting of the mayor, 6 aldermen and 26 capital burgesses. The mayor, who was the returning officer, was nominated by the lord’s steward out of the aldermen. Vacancies among the aldermen were filled by the corporation out of two capital burgesses nominated respectively by the steward and the mayor.Bridges, Northants. i.
The nomination of the returning officer for Peterborough was in dispute between the Earl of Exeter, as lord of the hundred of Nassaburgh, and the dean and chapter, as lords of the city. The latter interest was replaced during the Interregnum by those of the St. John and Orme families, who occupied most of the property in the soke and the city, respectively. At the general election of 1660 Humphrey Orme was returned unopposed, but for the other seat there was a double return of Lord le Despenser, heir to the principal landowner in the eastern division of Northamptonshire, and Francis St.
Few constituencies had a more turbulent history than Northampton, at least in the opening years of this period. This was partly due to the existence of an ‘obstinate and numerous’ body of sectaries in the town, partly to the efforts of the corporation to retain the exclusive franchise which they had arrogated to themselves early in the 16th century. This body fluctuated somewhat in number, but in 1674 consisted of 13 aldermen, 26 bailiffs and 48 ‘burgesses’.