The principal interest at Windsor lay in the castle. From 1722 to 1761 the Beauclerk dukes of St. Albans, lords lieutenant of Berkshire 1714-51, who owned Burford House in the borough, always held one of the seats, the 2nd Duke being constable of the castle 1730-51. According to the Duchess of Marlborough, George II said at his levee in 1738, 'Lord Vere [Beauclerk] should have the seat in Parliament, for Windsor was his [i.e. the King's] borough'.1 Members returned were always agreeable to the Crown and supporters of the Administration, except in 1715, when two Tories were returned thanks to the support of the displaced constable, the Duke of Northumberland, the partiality of the mayor as returning officer, and the power to influence workmen at the castle by their positions at the office of works. Their Whig opponents, who were supported by the new constable, the Duke of Kent, were seated on petition.2

In 1738 Lord Vere Beauclerk

was most warmly opposed by the Duke of Marlborough and the old Duchess [the ranger of Windsor Great Park], in favour of one Mr. Oldfield of the town, a person of no great merit, and by very ill management on the part of the St. Albans family, Lord Vere was in great danger of losing it. But in the event the votes were equal, 133 each. The Commons, who have often made a minority a majority, you will easily believe could do it on an equality ... They declared Lord Vere duly elected by 240 to 160.3

In 1741 Henry Fox, then surveyor of the works, took the second seat, which he retained for 20 years. Though four times returned unopposed, the expense of maintaining his interest was considerable. He wrote in December 1743: 'The company which I treat every Wednesday increases excessively. So I am in a fair way to be very poor and very successful'; and in May 1746 he estimated his expenses at a by-election to be 'something under £400'.4