(a couple of weeks ago now) Kathrine W wondered how often Sir Thomas would hit the campaign trail - in real-life Northampton shire politicians, the answer would be somewhere between once and never.

In the twenty years before 1814, there were six general elections (1790,1796,1802, 1806,1807,1812), with the borough of Northampton contested in 1796 and Northamptonshire in 1806, in all the other elections and in all the other electorates in the shire, a single candidate accepted without contest. One candidate conceding contest in Northamptonshire in 1806 explaining that he preferred to retain "the uninterruptedness of the present state of society, -- leaving where they were before, old family connections and friendships, -- tenants without risque of offending their landlords, -- and tradesmen of losing valuable customers in opposite interest, --leaving the general order of men engaged in their accustomed occupations and pursuits without temptation to idleness, intoxication, licentiousness and possibly proposition"(1), and maybe also to spare himself the expense of bringing these disturbances about.

The shire of Northampton had five electorates:
The county of Northamptonshire (with approx 1300 voters in a 1801 population of 7,020, -above half the adult male population,a Tory seat), the 'potwolloper' borough of Northampton (also with approx 1000 voters, and a Tory seat), the 'Scot and Lot' borough of Peterborough (400ish voters in an 1801 population of 3449,a Whig seat), the pocket borough of Brackley (33 voters, all members of the town corporation, Whig seat) and the rotten borough of Higham Ferras (50 voters in a population of 726, the electorate "at the disposal of the Earl Fitzwilliam", a Whig).
All returned two representatives to parliament, except Higham Ferrars which returned a single representative.(4)

The uninterruptedness of life in the county did not come cheap: in 1768 there had been a three-way contest between the three big land-holding families (The Tory Earl of Northampton, his brother in law Vice-Admiral Rodney, and the Whig Earl of Spencer) had cost them around £250,000 altogether, Spencer lost his cellar, Rodney sold his estate and Northampton had been obliged to retire to the continent as a consequence.(2) The memory of this campaign detered prospective candidates from contest until 1806, when it looked like the incumbent Tory was in sufficient financial difficulty to retire if contested by a resident Tory who had wished to be applied to when this professional outsider had slid into the seat unopposed in 1796 but had not been asked. Lord Spencer decided to put in an oppostion candidate as well, ensuring 1806 was "sufficiently expensive to discharge future contest for many years...Compton[the 'winner', whose father had died in Switzerland] could ill afford it, and took five years to pay off his bills."(4)

The larger more democratic electorates were expensive because of the diversity of voters and landlords,the smaller boroughs were also expensive when the right men were not cheap, or the wrong men made the select few as costly as a borough full of venal tradesmen.
While party lines were not so well defined then, and many electorates were decided on matters of purely local interest, the electorates in Northampton were (from 1796) influenced by National issues and strongly partisan.(1)

Edmund's determination to wait "till there is an especial assembly for the representation of younger sons who have little to live on", is the same sort of sophistical nonsense as his approval of Fanny moving in with Aunt Norris, or his approbation of cutting down the avenue at Southerton to improve it. Younger sons and poor men were regularly put up for a borough where they could represent both their patron and the national interest, often put in for a sinecure or pension as well. Pitt the younger was a second son, and the real life member for Northampton at the time was the second son of a second marriage, with an allowance of £200 a year, before he took to the law and the then (in 1795, at no cost to himself) parliament and then the primeministership (1806-1812). (2)
While Mr Perceval's example shows that Mary's ambition could not be higher, he also shows that Edmund is just the right age to enter the law and born in a good situation for becoming prime-minister, if he exerted himself.
Edmund's ability to tow the party line and uphold the status quo by blithering rubbish without conscience or reflection is a safer talent for a politician than a moral guardian, but clergymen were not above politics, and while his motives for going into the church are probably purer than he claims them to be (I trust Fanny's judgement in the matter), I am not sure his father's are - about a third of the voting population of Northamptonshire were dissenters, and there were instances of members of the church campaigning from the pulpit for the Lord to whom he owed his living, ensuring parishioners were recorded on the right side of the poll books, "proving himself by constant attention their well-wisher an friend"(and the enemy of dissent)in ways that did not do much credit to the cloth.(1)
Mary's surprise at the 'sturdy independence' of the local farmers, hints at a 'potwalloper' borough, where Sir Thomas's tenants have the right to vote if they are male and have a hearth to cook a pot of food on. ('independence' in the electoral sense meaning loyalty to the interests of a landlord that pays the poor tax on behalf of your household, ensures the cottages are in good condition and the rents affordable, denies competing tradesmen (especially non-conforming ones) a lease on the local shops, installs a corn mill at a good rent, gets the local roads improved, gives a good price for your hay. Such considerations ensure a one-off £5 bribe from a city stranger cannot buy your interest, especially after 1806 when it became illegal to take specie in exchange for a vote.)

On the other hand, Sir Thomas's approval of Maria's engagement in absentia, hints at a pocket borough (that is, a corporation borough, where voting is restricted to the half dozen or so members of the town corporation - the mayor, sheriff and suchlike.) These were very safe, but also among the most expensive boroughs to hold onto, and if a prospective or actual challenger in 1806 had contributed to Sir Thomas's financial woes, Maria could be an inexpensive way to ensure that the combined interest of Mansfield and Sotherton would be unbeatable in 1812. Their combined independence would give Sir Thomas and Mr Rushworth considerable political clout on whichever side of the house they chose to exert their influence for. The breakdown of the political influence of the Lord of the Manor at Honiton (infamous for its corruption in the 1806 election), shows only some of the types of influence a principle landholder enjoys: "(1) The Lord's right to appoint to the office of Portreeve, Bailiff and aletasters (2) The two principal inns are let from year to year and thus the Lord can influence not only the votes of his tenants but also those of the tradespeople who sell there, as well as many of the domestics (3) The present bailiff is a cordwainer and employs eighteen cordwainers and they are influenced (4) The right to graze over meadow and pasture land round the town."(1). Then, they might also have the right to appoint mayors, town clerks, custos rotulorum, Sheriffs and Lord Lieutenants of the County, or magistrates who could then threaten to revoke the licence of an innkeeper who was inclined to vote the other way... no wonder Mary is rapturous at the power and respect commanded by a man that could represent the country. When the happiness of a union between Sir Thomas and Mr Rushworth is considered,his offer to act for Maria is a noble sacrifice.

Northampton also illustrates one difficulty the Whigs encountered when campaigning for a reformed parliament with annual elections, franchise to all who were directly taxed, secret polls and equal electorates.

References:
(1)Frank O'Gorman, Voters, Patrons, and Parties(Oxford:Clarendon Press, 1989)

(2)Edward Porritt,The Unreformed House of Commons Vol 1 (Cambridge University Press, 1903)

(3)Robert Beatson, "A Chronological Register of Both Houses of Parliament" (London: Longman, Hurst, Res & Orme, 1807)

(4)R.G. Thorne,The House of Commons 1790-1820 (History of Parliment Trust, Secker and Warburg:London, 1986)

Wikipedia:
UK Electorates before 1832
Borough of Northampton
Higham Ferrers
Brackley