In 1660 there were 52 counties and 215 parliamentary boroughs, returning a total of 507 Members. The 39 English counties (Durham had not yet been enfranchised) each returned two MPs, the 12 Welsh counties one Member each. The 12 Welsh boroughs were all single-Member constituencies, as were five English ones (Abingdon, Banbury, Bewdley, Higham Ferrers and Monmouth). Two constituencies, London and the linked boroughs of Weymouth and Melcombe Regis, returned four Members. Durham County and city were enfranchised by Act of Parliament in 1673, and Newark by royal charter in the same year. Newark was the last constituency to be enfranchised in this way, and it required the issue of a second charter widening the franchise (which had originally been in the corporation) before a valid election could be held. As a result of these enfranchisements, by the end of the Cavalier Parliament the Membership of the Commons had been increased by six. Throughout the period (and indeed long after) county Members were elected by 40 s. freeholders, but borough MPs were returned on a variety of franchises of which there were eight main types: burgage, corporation, freeholder, freeman, freeman and other, householder, inhabitant, and scot and lot.

There were 31 burgage boroughs in 1660, in which the franchise was attached to fixed units of property which entitled their owners to vote. Owners of more than one burgage installed people in their burgages for electoral purposes (faggot voters), and burgage-holders who were ineligible to vote (chiefly women and minors) were allowed to delegate their votes. The franchise of one burgage borough, Aldborough, was altered to scot and lot payers by decision of the Commons. Some burgage boroughs (Bere Alston, Whitchurch and Castle Rising for example) were indisputably pocket boroughs, but the practice of systematically buying up burgages in order to establish electoral control was not as widespread in this period as it was to become in the eighteenth century, and the electoral interest of many Members rested as much on deference as it did on burgage ownership.

There were 31 boroughs in 1660 in which the franchise was vested in the corporation only. By 1689 a combination of new charters and decisions of the House had reduced that number to 25. Although corporations tended to be small self-perpetuating oligarchies, deference to the wishes of a local landowner (particularly if many townspeople were dependent on him for trade or employment) was not uncommon, and quo warranto proceedings could temporarily give the Government a strong interest.

In ten boroughs (12 in 1689) the franchise lay in the freeholders, and in 92 boroughs (89 by the end of the period) Members were elected by the freemen. These boroughs were not homogeneous. In some towns the method of creating freemen gave the corporation a strong interest; in others the presence of a garrison or naval dockyard meant that the Government exercised considerable influence. Smaller boroughs tended to be more receptive to threats or bribery than larger ones, and remodelling of charters could have a profound effect on elections. In a further 17 boroughs the franchise was vested in freemen and others (usually rate-payers) and by 1689 this number had risen to 19. Like freeman boroughs, these towns varied greatly in size of electorate and vulnerability to outside influence. Camelford had only 60 electors, Bedford over 500.

Ten boroughs returned Members on a householder franchise. The smallest of these, St. Germans, was a pocket borough entirely under the influence of the Eliot family, but for the most part they were large and fairly independent towns like Southwark and Taunton, in which no single interest predominated. In a further five boroughs the inhabitants were entitled to vote. These were all quite small boroughs, one of which, Wendover, was virtually a pocket borough under the control of the Hampden family.

There were 19 boroughs in 1660 in which the franchise was vested in scot and lot payers (that is, those who contributed to church and poor) and by 1689 this number had risen to 26. These were for the most part boroughs of medium size which tended to be fairly independent of outside influence, although the smallest of them, Stockbridge, acquired a reputation for venality. Steyning, not much larger, was dominated by John Fagg I.

Leaving aside changes in electorates which were later reversed (most of which occurred prior to the 1685 election and were annulled before the elections to the Revolution Convention), the franchises of 19 boroughs were altered during this period. Four of these changes were by charter, the rest by decision, either stated or implicit, of the Commons. In 1689 at New Windsor the House reversed no less than three earlier decisions and accepted that the franchise lay in the corporation, as stated in the 1685 charter (to do otherwise would have unseated the Speaker, Henry Powle). At East Looe the charter of 1685 altered the franchise from corporation to freeman, while Newark’s charter of 1684 widened the electorate from the corporation to the corporation, freemen and freeholders. At St. Ives the 1685 charter narrowed the franchise from the freemen to the corporation; the electorate was undefined at the next election and remained a matter of dispute till 1702.

In three instances, Tamworth in 1679 (Mar.), and Sudbury and Malmesbury in 1689, the Commons seem to have accepted a fait accompli by the electorate which effectively widened the franchise. The franchises of 12 boroughs were altered by decision of the House. In two instances, Exeter in June 1689 and Bridgwater in 1679 (Mar.), the Commons’ decision was implicit in allowing candidates elected on a wider franchise to take their seats. The Commons usually voted in favour of enlarging an electorate, particularly during the Exclusion crisis when a House predominantly hostile to the Court was anxious to undermine government influence in the boroughs. There were exceptions: in December 1680 the Commons decided that the franchise at Great Marlow lay in the scot and lot payers, not the inhabitants, thus ensuring the defeat of the court supporter, Humphrey Winch. Generally, however, a wider franchise favoured opponents of the Court.

Election contests in boroughs are usually known only from reports in the Journals. Thus the numbers given below would probably be increased if our knowledge were greater. Contemporary evidence for county elections, however, is nearly always forthcoming, so that the numbers given here may be assumed to be accurate. At the general election of 1660, 23 seats were contested in 16 counties. There were straight contests in 29 boroughs, involving 37 seats. In a further 40 boroughs candidates were doubly returned for a total of 56 seats and nine elections were subsequently declared void. The large number of double returns reflects the genuine ignorance of the returning officers as to what the franchise should be, and perhaps their reluctance to make decisions in the time of political uncertainty which preceded the meeting of the Restoration Convention. Three by-elections were contested, all in borough constituencies.

Only 14 county seats in 11 counties were contested at the general election of 1661, one of which (Breconshire) was subsequently declared void. There were 44 straight contests in 32 boroughs, and in a further 28 boroughs elections resulted in double returns (the number of seats involved was 36). Six borough elections were eventually declared void. There were contested by-elections for 16 county seats, double returns for three and a void by-election in one. No fewer than 100 seats were contested at by-elections; in a further eight, double returns were made, and an additional ten contested by-elections in boroughs were subsequently declared void. The relatively large number of double returns and void elections was due to disputes about the franchise and procedure at elections in which both local and national politics were involved.

The elections to the first Exclusion Parliament saw the largest number of contests for any general election of the period. Twenty-two seats were contested in 17 counties, and two county elections were declared void. A total of 103 borough seats were contested in 84 boroughs but there were only six double returns (involving nine seats), since many uncertainties about franchises and election procedures had been resolved during the Cavalier Parliament. One borough and three county seats were contested at by-elections.

Twenty-three seats in 16 counties were contested at the second general election of 1679. Eighty-four seats were fought in 61 boroughs, but there were only four double returns (two each in two boroughs) and two void elections. One county and four borough seats were contested at by-elections.

The elections to the Oxford Parliament saw a sharp drop in the number of contests. There were contests in only nine counties, involving 15 seats, and 63 seats were fought in 45 boroughs (there were two double returns, both for the same borough). Many court supporters may have felt their cause was hopeless, and many candidates may not have had the resources to fight a third election in the space of two years; in fact, some corporations wrote to their sitting Members promising to re-elect them without expense. There were no by-elections for this shortlived Parliament.

At the elections to James II’s Parliament, 23 seats were contested in 15 counties, and 77 seats in 57 boroughs. There was one double return and one void election, both for borough seats. Five seats in four boroughs were fought at by-elections. The elections to the Revolution Convention again saw a fall in the number of contests. There were contests in only nine counties (involving 13 seats) and 41 boroughs (for 56 seats). In addition there were ten double returns in six boroughs, and five borough elections were subsequently declared void. One county and 15 borough seats were contested at by-elections; one by-election for a borough seat was voided.

The chart below shows the size and type of each constituency, and contests and double returns for each Parliament. The borough types are shown in capital letters, B standing for burgage, C for corporation, FH for freeholder, F for freeman, H for householder, I for inhabitant and SL for scot and lot. The constituency sizes are shown in brackets, (S) indicating an electorate of 50 or under, (M) an electorate of between 51 and 500, and (L) an electorate of over 500. An ‘X’ stands for a contested general election; an ‘X’ preceded by an italicized date indicates a contested by-election. All known contests, including those on the cry or view as well as those on the poll, have been included. A ‘d’ is used to show double returns. The new charters which affected the elections to James II’s Parliament, most of which were granted between 1681 and 1685, are indicated by asterisks.

Franchises and Contested Elections

Ref Volumes: 1660-1690

Author: Basil Duke Henning

End Notes