Before 1689 the electorate at Portsmouth had been confined to the freemen, but in that year the inhabitants at large were allowed to vote and they continued to do so in 1690 and 1695. The strongest interests lay with the governor of the military garrison and the Admiralty through the dock, naval and victualling yards.
Petersfield was a corporation by prescription. Its mayor, bailiff and two aldermen were elected annually at the lord of the manor’s court leet, who potentially therefore had considerable power over the borough. For most of the period, however, the lord of the manor was Ralph Bucknall, whose interference in the borough appears to have been minimal. Although there were probably no contests in our period, the right to vote was disputed between the freeholders in general, who voted in 1659 and 1689, and the burgage holders.
The right of election at Newtown lay with the burgage holders, who were also freemen. In practice this had usually meant that anyone who owned a burgage could automatically become a freeman, but in the reign of Charles ii a new bye-law had been passed limiting the number of freemen to 12, who were thenceforward referred to as aldermen or capital burgesses. This restriction of the franchise enabled the governor of the Isle of Wight to exert considerable influence over elections. The other chief interest lay with the Worsley family of Appuldurcombe.Ibid. 140–2.
In the early 18th century it was estimated that Newport contained about 400 houses and about 2,000 inhabitants, but the right of election in the borough was confined to the corporation, which consisted of 12 aldermen and 12 common councilmen. The mayor, chosen annually from among the aldermen, was the returning officer. Of the three Isle of Wight boroughs Newport was the one most closely under the control of the governor of the island, who could always nominate one and frequently both Members.Bodl. Willis 48, f. 414; HMC Astley, 77.
Lymington was a borough by prescription, its officers consisting of a mayor, recorder, steward, town clerk and, in theory, an unlimited number of burgesses, although in practice the numbers did not reach above about 70. In this period the controlling interest was exercised by the Burrards of Walhampton.
The right of election at Christchurch had never been determined, but it was usually exercised by the corporation, consisting of the mayor, who acted as returning officer, and 24 freemen. Occasionally this exclusive right was challenged by the inhabitants at large. The strongest interest belonged to the lord of the manor, at the beginning of this period the 2nd Earl of Clarendon (Henry Hyde†), who traditionally had the right to nominate one and often both Members.Ibid.
Andover’s charter of 1599 specified that the corporation would include a bailiff, a steward, ten aldermen or approved men and 12 common councilmen or freemen. By a decision of the House in 1689 the right of election was confined to these 24 members of the corporation rather than the freemen in general. The bailiff acted as returning officer and considerable influence for one seat could be exercised by the steward, who was elected by the corporation.
The chief electoral magnate in Hampshire was the Duke of Bolton (Charles Powlett†), the lord lieutenant and owner of considerable estates in the county. At the 1690 election Bolton’s son, the Marquess of Winchester (Charles Powlett I), was returned with Richard Norton I of Southwick, an army officer who commanded one of Bolton’s regiments. Norton’s death in May 1691 necessitated a by-election. Initially, Sir Robert Worsley, 4th Bt.†, was
There was some apprehension in Tewkesbury that the town’s franchise, comprising corporation burgesses, freemen and freeholders, also extended to the inhabitant householders, although it was not until 1797 that the question was ever examined and decided upon in the committee of elections. On this occasion the right of election was awarded to the freeholders against a counter-claim on behalf of the inhabitant householders, an indication that men of both categories had at various times been permitted to poll.
The steady expansion of Gloucester’s freeman electorate during the earlier decades of the 17th century had prevented the evolution of any controlling interest. The city’s governing body could adopt favoured candidates, and provide them with additional electoral support through ‘mass’ creations of new freemen, though this was not necessarily enough to sway the outcome of elections.
