 | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
All558 seats in theHouse of Commons 280 seats needed for a majority | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 Composition of theHouse of Commons after the election | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
The1761 British general election returned members to serve in theHouse of Commons of the 12thParliament of Great Britain to be summoned, after the merger of theParliament of England and theParliament of Scotland in 1707. This was the first Parliament chosen after the accession to the throne ofKing George III. It was also the first election after George III had lifted the conventional proscription on the employment ofTories in government. The King prevented the Prime Minister, theDuke of Newcastle, from using public money to fund the election of Whig candidates, but Newcastle instead simply used his private fortune to ensure that his ministry gained a comfortable majority.
However, with the Tories disintegrating, as a result of the end of their proscription providing them with new opportunities for personal advancement, and the loyalty they felt to the new king causing them to drift apart, there was little incentive for Newcastle's supporters to stay together. What little survived of Whig ideology was not compelling enough to maintain the party's coherence, and they split into a number of feuding factions led by aristocratic magnates, contributing to the political instability that would last until 1770.
With only 48 constituencies contested, the election was one of the least contested in British history. This was the last time until1832 that the Tories secured less than 200 seats.
The constituencies used were the same throughout the existence of theParliament of Great Britain.
Monmouthshire (One County constituency with two members and one single member Borough constituency) is included in Wales in these tables. Sources for this period may include the county in England.
Table 1: Constituencies and Members, by type and country[1]
| Country | BC | CC | UC | Total C | BMP | CMP | UMP | Total Members |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 England | 202 | 39 | 2 | 243 | 404 | 78 | 4 | 486 |
| Wales | 13 | 13 | 0 | 26 | 13 | 14 | 0 | 27 |
 Scotland | 15 | 30 | 0 | 45 | 15 | 30 | 0 | 45 |
| Total | 230 | 82 | 2 | 314 | 432 | 122 | 4 | 558 |
Table 2: Number of seats per constituency, by type and country
| Country | BC×1 | BC×2 | BC×4 | CC×1 | CC×2 | UC×2 | Total C |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| England | 4 | 196 | 2 | 0 | 39 | 2 | 243 |
| Wales | 13 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 26 |
| Scotland | 15 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 0 | 0 | 45 |
| Total | 32 | 196 | 2 | 42 | 40 | 2 | 314 |
The general election was held between 25 March 1761 and 5 May 1761.[2]
At this period elections did not take place at the same time in every constituency. The returning officer in each county orparliamentary borough fixed the precise date (seehustings for details of the conduct of the elections).
| Whig | 79.9% | |||
| Tory | 20.1% | |||
On the eve of the general electionHorace Walpole wrote toHorace Mann:[3]
Whatever mysteries or clouds there are, will probably develop themselves as soon as the elections are over, and the Parliament fixed, which now engrosses all conversation and all purses ; for the expense is incredible. West Indians, conquerors,nabobs, and admirals, attack every borough ; there are no fewer than nine candidates atAndover. The change in a Parliament used to be computed at between sixty and seventy; now it is believed there will be an hundred and fifty new members. Corruption now stands upon its own legs no money is issued from the Treasury ; there are no parties, no pretence of grievances, and yet venality is grosser than ever! The borough ofSudbury has gone so far as to advertise for a chapman ! We have been as victorious as the Romans, and are as corrupt : I don't know how soon the Praetorian militia will set the empire to sale.
This had been used in a number of history books.[4] The historianLewis Namier refuted this in an essay on the 1761 General Election.[5] His argument was that the number of new MPs in1747 and1754 were about the same as 1761, that the 48 contested constituencies out of 315 in total was smaller than 1754, the price of seats - although higher than 1754 - was explained by the higher chance of a full seven tear term and that the numbers of admirals fell while the other "new men" rose only slightly.
.jpg)
.svg)