The corporation was a power in Yarmouth politics, and the corporation was controlled by the Walpole and Townshend families, who each filled one seat. But there was always an anti-corporation party and in 1754 this found a leader in John Ramey, an attorney who had acted as agent for the Townshend-Walpole interest and had been disobliged by them.
From 1754 to 1774 one seat at King’s Lynn was held by Sir John Turner and the other by a member of the Walpole family. In 1765 Turner quarrelled with one of his principal supporters, and an opposition developed against him which soon assumed a political character. Turner, who had held office under the Grenville Administration, remained with Grenville in opposition; his opponent, Crisp Molineux, was a friend of Wilkes and admirer of Chatham; while the Walpoles preserved their neutrality.
Castle Rising was a complete pocket borough, shared by the families of Walpole and Howard. George, 3rd Earl of Orford, nominated to one seat throughout this period; the other was controlled by Henry, 12th Earl of Suffolk, and after his death in 1779 by his mother, Lady Andover.
Although Monmouth had a comparatively large electorate, it was a complete pocket borough of the Duke of Beaufort.
Westminster was the largest urban constituency in the kingdom, and invariably returned men of the highest social standing: of its fourteen representatives between 1754 and 1790, nine were sons of peers, one was an Irish peer, and four were baronets. Indeed, in 1762 Newcastle was uncertain whether Edwin Sandys, whose father had been ennobled only in 1743, was ‘of dignity enough’ to represent Westminster.Add. 32936, f.
In 1784 Thomas Cooke, mayor of Stamford and returning officer, wrote about the borough:J. Drakard, Hist. Stamford, 155.
London was probably the most politically conscious constituency in Great Britain, and political movements emanating from London affected the neighbouring constituencies of Westminster, Southwark, Middlesex, and Surrey. The franchise was not as wide as that of the freeman boroughs, and did not include the labouring classes; but only Westminster, among the urban constituencies, had a larger electorate. In its court of aldermen and common council London had an elective system of local government, which could be used to organize and channel political agitation.
In 1762 John Page, who had represented Grimsby in the earlier part of the century, told the Duke of Newcastle that the electors of Grimsby were ‘venal to a man’.Add. 32942, f. 62. And he added:
Grimsby men hate joining of interest so much that no two candidates ever dared to own they supported each other, though at times there have been private undertakings between them.
Lincoln was an open borough, and contests were so frequent and expensive that in 1784 Sir Joseph Banks, a neighbouring gentleman, wrote: ‘after having distressed two or three families, no one will now attempt’.Mss of the Spalding Gentlemen’s Society. The Monsons of Burton and the Lumleys of Glentworth had the best interest, and several local gentlemen had influence, but any combination between the gentry was sure to be opposed by a third party among the freemen. The London outvoters comprised a considerable part of the electorate, and were always anxious for a contest.
Three interests struggled at Boston. The Berties, Dukes of Ancaster, were strong enough to carry one seat throughout the period; the second was disputed between the corporation interest and a third ‘independent’ group. Between 1741 and 1777 the corporation seat was held by two local men, John Michell and Charles Amcotts. On Amcotts’ death in 1777 the corporation brought in Humphrey Sibthorp of Canwick.
