Sir Robert Clayton, 3rd Bt., was sole proprietor of Bletchingley. Until his death in 1799, when not returning himself he took paying guests, who, like himself, opposed Pitt’s administration. Francis paid £4,200 in 1790 and Hobhouse £4,000, with freedom of action, in 1797.Blair Adam mss, Graham to Adam, 24 Jan., Hobhouse to ?, 30 Jan.
Sudbury had defied long-term management by a patron, despite repeated attempts to bring it under control. Since 1747 the borough had been contested at every opportunity and had acquired a reputation for venality.
At the election of 1768 Orford became a pocket borough of Francis Seymour Conway, 1st Earl of Hertford, created a marquess in 1793. He, and from 1794 his heir the 2nd Marquess, remained in unquestioned control throughout this period. The corporation of 12 and the eight portmen, if they chose to create them, were non-resident relatives and friends of the patron. The inhabitants had no say and elections passed ‘without trouble or expense’.PP (1835), xxvi. 2510; Oldfield, Boroughs, ii.
Parliamentary and corporation elections at Ipswich were still carried on under the colours of Yellow and Blue after 1790, but their significance had become so blurred that they served only to illustrate the factiousness of the freemen, one-third of whom were non-resident. Thus the sitting Members in 1790, Middleton and Crickitt, who originally sported the Blue and Yellow colours respectively, both supported Pitt and united as Blues against their Yellow opponents at that election, Sir John D’ Oyly and his Irish brother-in-law Maj. Rochfort.
Eye had been a pocket borough of the Cornwallis family, seated nearby, for a century and in effect remained so throughout this period, but it caused Charles Cornwallis, created Marquess in 1792, and his heir acute anxiety. The marquess was governor-general of Bengal from 1786 until 1793 and left the management of his affairs to his brother James, bishop of Lichfield, who expected from Pitt translation to another see as his reward. (He had to make do with deaneries.)PRO 30/8/125, ff.
This borough, reduced by coastal erosion to a small village, had been controlled jointly by the Barne and Vanneck families since 1764. By an agreement made then and renewed in 1803 they limited the number of freemen to 32, half to be resident. There was a nominal corporation of 12 and the two families supplied a bailiff each. They reinforced their predominance by joint purchase of local property.
In 1747 the Herveys, earls of Bristol and hereditary recorders of the borough, had lost one seat to the Fitzroys, dukes of Grafton. A compromise between the two families was not reached until 1802. A schism in the Hervey family, encouraged by the 3rd Duke of Grafton, prevented it; and after 1774, in alliance with the 4th Earl of Bristol’s brother-in-law Sir Charles Davers, he was able to exclude the Herveys from the representation. After 1780 they had no candidate ready. There was no change in 1790, but the borough remained open. The Grafton interest was on the wane and on 29 Jan.
Although Aldeburgh was classified as an open borough by the Treasury in 1788, it had been effectively controlled since 1747 by one family. Thomas Fonnereau was patron until his death in 1779, and subsequently (as at Sudbury) his brother-in-law Philip Champion Crespigny who, by ‘introducing honorary freemen’, ensured his control.
Tamworth was regarded as a close borough. Since 1765 a compromise to return a Member each had been in operation between the Manor interest and the Castle interest; the former (and more powerful) was in the hands of Thomas Thynne, 3rd Viscount Weymouth (created in 1789 Marquess of Bath) and the latter maintained by George Townshend, 1st Marquess Townshend.
Stafford, which acknowledged no patron, was a constant drain on the purses of its Members, thanks to the size of the electorate, among whom journeymen shoemakers predominated. But money was not enough to maintain an interest there. Sheridan found the service of Joshua Drewry, editor of the Staffordshire Advertiser, useful. He came to grief in 1806 and in 1812, although he was inclined to attribute his failure in the latter election to the want of funds rather than admit that it was his neglect of his constituents that had caused it.
