Commons 1690-1715

Coventry, as Sir John Perceval (John, Viscount Perceval†) observed on his visit there in 1701, was ‘a very populous and trading place’ in which the manufacture, dressing and marketing of cloth was an economic mainstay. The organization of most of the city’s trades into companies endowed the wide freemen electorate with a semblance of political infrastructure. This impression obtains particular weight from the flow of petitions from these trades to Parliament concerning their various economic grievances.

In Warwickshire there continued a strong preference among the gentry for deciding elections in advance through general meetings. The infrequency with which polls were held during this period in itself testifies to the general acceptability of this manner of proceeding. None the less, it was always appreciated how easily the ‘unanimity’ of the county might be disturbed by dissentient or ambitious spirits.

The right of election at Steyning lay in the inhabitants paying scot and lot, but gradually the assessment of these rates was restricted to certain houses built on ancient foundation. The borough had no corporation, the constable who was elected annually at the court of the lord of the manor, the Duke of Norfolk, acting as the returning officer. There was no controlling interest but a strong influence was exercised by two rival local families, the Whig Faggs of Wiston and the Tory Gorings of Highden, both of whom owned houses within the town.

New Shoreham was a manorial borough consisting of about 150 houses in this period, with the constable, chosen at the manorial court, acting as returning officer. However, the lords of the manor, the Howard family, dukes of Norfolk, made no attempt to intervene in parliamentary elections. The borough became increasingly venal, frequently returning wealthy London merchants.

The right of election at Midhurst lay in the burgage holders and potentially the strongest interest lay with the lord of the borough, who controlled the appointment of the returning officer, the bailiff, who was chosen annually at the capital court by a jury selected by the lord’s steward. In this period the lordships of the borough and the manor of Midhurst, although technically separate, were both held by the viscounts Montagu of the neighbouring Cowdray estate.

Lewes did not have a charter, the borough being governed by a self-selecting body of the wealthier citizens, known as ‘the twelve’ or the ‘fellowship’, although it often consisted of more than 12 members. They were supported by an inferior council of ‘the twenty four’, although this also often comprised more than 24 members.

Horsham was a manorial borough where the franchise was vested in the burgage holders, who numbered 54 in 1611 but had increased to 68 by 1686. In this period there appears to have been some splitting of burgages for electoral purposes but the overall number of burgage holders had only increased to 69 by 1720.

East Grinstead was a borough by prescription, where the right of election traditionally lay with some 40 burgage holders. From time to time the inhabitants paying scot and lot had successfully claimed the right to vote, notably between 1679 and 1681, but their claim had been denied by the Commons in 1689, when it overturned a report of the elections committee which had favoured the wider franchise.

Chichester had held a charter since the 12th century, although the charter in force in this period was that imposed by James II in 1685: it defined the corporation as consisting of a mayor, recorder and some eight aldermen and 40 common councilmen. There was no controlling interest at Chichester but the corporation, which was largely Tory dominated, had some influence in parliamentary elections, partly through its control over the election of the mayor, who acted as the returning officer.

Defoe described Bramber as hardly deserving the name of a town,

having not above 15 or 16 families in it, and of them not many above asking you an alms as you ride by; the chiefest house in the town is a tavern, and here as I have been told, the vintner or alehouse keeper, boasted that upon an election, just then over, he had made £300 of one pipe of canary.