Lord Onslow, seated at Clandon Park two miles from Guildford, had considerable influence in the borough, and in 1754 both Members were returned on his interest without a contest. In 1761 the Onslow interest faced a stiff opposition from George Lane Parker, and in 1766 had to yield one seat to Sir Fletcher Norton. Thomas Whateley wrote to Grenville on 31 Dec. 1766:Grenville mss (JM).
No one family before 1780 had complete control of the borough. The Molyneuxes of Loseley, heirs to the More family who had sat for Haslemere in the 17th century, were lords of the manor (which gave them the returning officer) and owned considerable property in the borough.
Bletchingley was a complete pocket borough of the Clayton family, who owned, according to Oldfield, all the burgages. In 1779 Sir Robert Clayton, financially embarrassed and apprehensive of parliamentary reform, sold the reversion of his property at Bletchingley (of which the intrinsic value was about £100 per annum) to his cousin John Kenrick, for £10,000. In June 1785 Clayton filed a bill in Chancery against Kenrick alleging that he had been ‘grossly imposed upon’ in the purchase and that the price was an ‘inadequate consideration’ for the parliamentary interest.
Gatton had a fairly wide franchise, but because of its decayed state was a complete pocket borough. In 1754 the patrons were Sir James Colebrooke, lord of the manor of Gatton, and the Rev. John Tattersall, lord of the manor of Upper Gatton. Colebrooke died in 1761 and was succeeded by his brother George; Tattersall died in 1769 and was succeeded by his brother James. The Tattersalls were closely connected with the Duke of Bedford, and from 1754 to 1768 placed their seat at Gatton at Bedford’s disposal.
‘As open as the day and night too’, wrote John Robinson about Sudbury in 1783.Laprade, 77. Every election 1754-90 went to the poll, and the borough had a well-deserved reputation for venality. Though there appears to have been a large Dissenting element in the town, neither religious nor political issues had much weight in its elections.
There were two parties in the borough, the Blues and the Yellows, though what these stood for is not always easy to say. In 1754 Admiral Edward Vernon, who was in opposition to the Pelhams, stood on the Yellow interest; Samuel Kent and Sir Richard Lloyd, supporters of Administration, on the Blue. Newcastle’s electoral survey noted against Ipswich: ‘A strong contest between Lloyd and Vernon—success doubtful.’ But Lloyd declined before the poll.
From 1754 to 1766 Orford was a safe Treasury borough: the number of freemen was deliberately restricted, and the majority of the corporation were absentee placemen. (In 1764 only six out of 21 were resident in Orford, and 18 held places under Government.) Its expenses were paid from secret service funds: £200 a year for the rent of houses which the Crown sub-let to voters, and £100 a year for ‘repairs, taxes, and the expenses of the mayor’s feast’. All the Members from 1754 to 1768 were Treasury nominees.
In 1754 Dunwich was a pocket borough of Sir Jacob Garrard Downing. The number of freemen was restricted and Downing allowed them to live rent-free, but before taking up their freedom compelled them to sign a bond as a guarantee of loyalty. Elections were uncontested and the candidates did not bother to make an appearance.
Eye was a pocket borough of the Cornwallis family, seated at Brome Hall, two miles away. Yet it required careful nursing, and Lord Cornwallis, when in residence, had to keep open house at Brome Hall. He wrote to a friend on 19 Sept. 1784: ‘I am now in the middle of the hurry and bustle of my month at Brome, which is not the pleasantest in the year.’ Though there were no contests during this period, Cornwallis’s control of the borough was by no means secure.
Aldeburgh was a pocket borough of the Fonnereau family; after Thomas Fonnereau’s death in 1779 it seems to have come under the control of his brother-in-law Philip Champion Crespigny. Chauncy Townsend nibbled at the borough in 1768,
