Commons 1690-1715

For a freeman borough Cambridge was furnished with a relatively small electorate, amenable to management by an entrenched oligarchy of aldermen and senior common councilmen, who were, however, generally content that the parliamentary representation should be left in the hands of neighbouring squires. Such political passions as did occasionally arise stemmed from squabbles within this civic elite or between the country gentlemen who were jockeying for the corporation’s favour. Rarely is there evidence of plebeian involvement in elections, or in borough politics generally.

The larger landowning interests tended to dominate the political landscape of Cambridgeshire, just as the county’s economy was dominated by agriculture. The urban populations of the university town and the smaller cathedral city of Ely seem to have played little part in elections for knights of the shire, which, when they were contested, were generally decided by a strenuous application of the ‘natural’ influence of landed property.

In Anne’s reign Wendover parish had between 250 and 300 resident families, comprising about 1,100 ‘souls’, but no person of quality resident in the borough. The Hampdens, resident at nearby Great Hampden, had the chief interest at Wendover. As lords of the manor, they appointed the constables, who acted as returning officers. Whereas in 1689 the Hampdens had monopolized the representation through Richard I* and his son John†, in 1690 neither was returned.

Political interests at Marlow in 1690 were at a transitional stage. The manor had changed hands in 1686 and was about to do so again and there had been two by-elections during 1689 owing to the deaths of sitting Members. In 1690 James Chase was secure, with the contest for the other seat being between Sir William Whitelocke and Ralph Bucknall*, a wealthy London brewer. Two indentures were sent up to Westminster which the Commons took into consideration on 22 Mar.

The franchise at Chipping Wycombe was controlled by the corporation through the admission of freemen. The predominant interest was that of Hon. Thomas Wharton* (Lord Wharton after 1696), the great Whig electoral manager, who was high steward for most of the period. Of the two manors in the borough, the corporation held one and the other belonged to the Archdales and later to Lord Shelburne (Henry Petty†). The borough was also noteworthy for its large Dissenting presence, which could usually be relied upon to support the Whig nominees of Wharton.

Aylesbury went to the polls at every general election in the period 1690–1715 except for the first, and even then a contested by-election occurred within 14 months. If Aylesbury was to attain a certain notoriety in Anne’s reign as a result of the Ashby v. White case, this was only the most obvious manifestation of party conflict.

Amersham displayed no political independence from the neighbouring gentry, the leading interests at the beginning of the period all owning land nearby. A poll from 1689 indicated 143 voters in a three-way contest between William Cheyne, son of Lord Newhaven (Charles Cheyne*), of Chesham Bois, Sir William Drake of Shardeloes, lord of the manor, and Edmund Waller of Beaconsfield, who presumably benefited from the large Dissenting presence in the borough. Drake and Waller emerged victorious.

Buckinghamshire was frequently contested in the first age of party. The sequence of contests began with two by-elections in 1696, and from 1698 seven of the next eight general elections went to a poll (the exception being 1708), as did the by-election in 1704. Such an outcome would have seemed surprising from a viewpoint in the early 1690s, when the Whig hegemony of the Whartons and Hampdens established in 1679 seemed secure, particularly as it upheld the tradition whereby one knight hailed from the Chilterns and the other from the ‘Vale’.

Wallingford’s importance as a settlement lay in its position adjacent to a ford across the Thames. Although the castle built to take advantage of this situation had been demolished in 1652, the site (together with the honor and manor of Ewelme) commanded a rental of £1,450 in 1700. The lessees of the castle were thus men of substance and two of them, Thomas Renda and William Hucks*, were parliamentary candidates in this period.

The right to vote in parliamentary elections at Reading had been settled by a decision of the Commons on 25 Mar. 1659 which invested the franchise in the mayor, aldermen and ‘commonalty’ of the borough, rather than in the freemen alone. In practice this ruling probably gave the vote to all male householders, making Reading one of the most open boroughs in the country with well over a thousand voters.