Berkshire

Our view of Abingdon’s political history is partially obscured by the absence of a clearly defined parliamentary franchise. On 23 May 1660 the Commons ruled between two rival interpretations, deciding that the franchise was vested in the inhabitants of the borough not receiving alms, rather than in the corporation alone. Although the House did not define the term ‘inhabitant’, it seems likely from later disputes that householders were meant, as the questions at issue revolved around the payment of scot and lot, residency and ownership.

Wallingford was a venal and expensive borough. In 1792 Oldfield wrote bluntly that ‘the highest bidder is always chosen ... Corruption is brought there to such a system that a legal discovery is not likely to be made, unless by a difference among the interested parties.’ The historian of the borough declared that the poorer classes ‘regarded any attempt to bring about a reformation of the borough as an attack upon their vested interests, deserving of determined, if not vindictive, opposition’.J. K. Hedges, Hist. Wallingford, ii.

Six of the eight elections for Reading during this period were contested, and the contests were remarkably expensive; even John Dodd’s return in 1755, which did not go to a poll, was not a cheap affair. The election of 1754 between Strode (a Tory), Fane (an Opposition Whig), and Dodd (a court Whig) was particularly hotly contested. ‘The electors, principally of the court side, have been remarkably venal’, wrote the Rev. Ralph Shirley on 11 June 1754. ‘. ...

In 1754 the Duke of Cumberland, who resided at Cumberland Lodge in Windsor Great Park, had the chief interest, and the borough was managed by Henry Fox. The Duke of St. Albans had an interest dating back at least to 1722, and a number of local landowners had considerable influence. There was a large proportion of independent voters, and the borough was not easily managed.

Although neighbouring landowners had a natural interest in the borough, it did not amount to patronage—‘one of the few boroughs’, remarked Oldfield in 1792, ‘over which aristocratical influence or corruption has not yet been able to extend its control’. But Shelburne in his electoral list of 1761 placed Abingdon among the ‘venal boroughs’, apparently not without justification.

Wallingford remained essentially venal, but during the first half of the period it was virtually in the pocket of Sir Francis Sykes, a rich nabob, who was said to have bought up most of the property in the borough. In April 1789 it was reported that his colleague, Thomas Aubrey, returned in 1784 on the declining interest of the 4th Earl of Abingdon, the high steward, would have to look elsewhere at the dissolution, despite his willingness to pay the going rate.

The absence of a dominant landed or manufacturing interest left Reading open, but only men with strong local connexions were likely to succeed. Earlier the borough had been notoriously venal, and after an apparent interlude of comparative respectability in the 1780s and 1790s, corruption, in the form of lavish treating, ostentatious municipal beneficence and widespread commercial racketeering, grew rife again.

Charles Knight, editor of the Windsor Express, described ‘Royal Windsor’ in the early 19th century as

a country town of the narrowest range of observation, and the tiniest circle of knowledge. The people vegetated, although living amidst a continual din of royalty going to and fro ... The ‘loyal’ or the ‘independent’ voters ... were fierce in their partisanship, but there was no real principle at the root of their differences.

In 1796 Charles Abbot, a native of Abingdon, described its electoral composition as follows:

The electors ... are about 240 scot and lot; about 70 of them take money. About half of the 240 go with the corporation. The dissenters, headed by the Tomkiss’s [Tomkinses] and Fletchers, are the next best interest. Child, the brewer, and his friends, have also considerable weight. If all three sets can agree, they carry the place in defiance of all opposition.

Wallingford was an independent borough, ‘in the hands of the lower people’. There was no predominant territorial influence; the corporation were divided, half for and half against the Administration;John Hervey to Ld. Hardwicke, 10 Jan. 1753, Add. 35592, ff. 6-7. every election was contested. The most important interests were those of wealthy business men, such as William Hucks, the King’s brewer, who carried the borough for the Government from 1715 till his death in 1740, except in 1727 when he appears to have compromised with a Tory, George Lewen.