Oxfordshire

<p>New Woodstock, ‘adjoining to the wall of Blenheim Park’,<fn>Oldfield, <em>Boroughs</em> (1792), ii. 390.</fn> was a complete pocket borough of the Duke of Marlborough.</p>

<p>Oxford was one of the larger freeman boroughs, but the corporation retained control of the representation throughout this period. In 1754 the corporation was in the hands of the Tories, and both the Members returned at the general election were Tories. Thomas Rowney was high steward, and was succeeded in 1759 by Sir James Dashwood, who had stood on the Tory interest in the celebrated county election of 1754.

<p>Banbury was under the control of the Earl of Guilford, seated at Wroxton, three miles away.</p><p>Though there were disputes within the corporation,<fn>See Bodl. North mss and Waldeshare mss, Kent RO.</fn> none of Lord North’s eleven elections in this period was contested.</p>

<p>The representation of the university was a much coveted honour reserved time out of mind for ‘that good old sort ... an independent country gentleman, a true friend to Church and King, unconnected with any party, of a good old family’. In this respect Oxford was anxious not to ‘sink’ to the level of Cambridge, where ministerial influence was held to prevail, and looked to Midland squires ‘like the Palmers, the Pages, the Newdigates, the Dolbens’ for its Members.

<p>Oxford was one of the larger freeman boroughs: in 1796 890 voted in three days, in 1802 1,186 in three days, in 1806 1,353 in six days, in 1812 1,538 in nine days and in 1818 1,143 in 4 days. In 1790 it was claimed that ‘the non-resident voters ... comprise above a moiety of the electors, of which almost 300 reside in and about London, a very great number at Bristol, Witney, Abingdon, Birmingham etc. etc. who will support the person who will oppose the chamber and they will be very considerably aided in the city’.<fn>Portland mss Pw2F15; Add. 37880, f.

<p>Woodstock, ‘adjoining to the wall of Blenheim park’, had offered no opposition to the dukes of Marlborough’s patronage since 1727.<fn>Oldfield, <em>Boroughs</em>, ii. 23; <em>Rep. Hist.</em> iv. 362.</fn> The 4th Duke continued to nominate members of his family and friends, expecting them, like himself, to support the government of the day. His neighbour and connexion by marriage Sir Henry Watkin Dashwood, a ruined man who had to be in Parliament, was Member from 1784 until 1820. The other seat was intended for his family, if and when eligible.

<p>The North family, seated at Wroxton nearby, had controlled the corporation and named the Member since 1740. By 1784 their hold was so weakened that it was reported that ‘Lord North has been very nearly shaken at Banbury, and upon a poll would have carried it only by one’.<fn>Rutland mss, Sydney to Rutland 5 Apr.

<p>The Tory-controlled corporation was the most powerful influence in the city of Oxford. All the Members returned were Tories. Thomas Rowney and his son, Thomas, who were members of the corporation, had the chief interest, representing the town for 64 years between them.

<p>Owing to the proximity of Blenheim, New Woodstock fell under the influence of the dukes of Marlborough, who became its hereditary high stewards, claiming the right of appointing the recorder of the borough.<fn>A. Ballard, <em>Woodstock Chrons.</em> 109, 126.</fn></p><p>In 1715 and at a by-election in 1716 the nominees of the Duke of Marlborough were returned without a contest.

<p>The chief interests in Banbury at George I’s accession were in two neighbouring Tory families, the Norths of Wroxton, three miles from the borough, and the Copes of Hanwell, two miles away. There was a strong non-juring party in the corporation who in 1715 returned Sir Jonathan Cope, an extreme Tory, unopposed. But in July 1718 a new charter was issued, under which another corporation was appointed.<fn>A. Beesley, <em>Hist.