Since 1774 Thomas Townshend, 1st Viscount Sydney, had assumed unchallenged control of Whitchurch. His nephew George Brodrick, 4th Viscount Midleton [I], whom he returned in that year diverged from him politically from 1784 until 1793, but was regarded as co-patron and was succeeded, on obtaining a British peerage in 1796, by his brother William until 1818. Sydney returned his heir, and he, on succeeding to the title, his two brothers in turn.
Stockbridge had a reputation for venality and no patron had ever succeeded in establishing a lasting interest there. By 1788 the Luttrell interest had vanished and a state of virtual anarchy prevailed. With no patron to manage affairs, direction of the voters was assumed by two of themselves, Christopher Bishop, a plumber and glazier, and one Horner, each of whom had grouped around himself a party of electors. The two coalesced with a combined following of 84 and contact was established with John Cator with whom a satisfactory understanding was reached for the return of two Members.
In August 1789, ridiculing a suggestion that he should stand for Southampton, where he knew only one member of the corporation, Charles Philip Yorke added:
and in order to be a candidate for Southampton it is not only necessary to be known, but to be known sub modo; namely to be a rich man, at least one well disposed to spend money.
He disliked the prospect of patronage ‘jobs’—‘almost as many as for Dover’—and concluded:
Portsmouth’s previous character as an Admiralty borough had been thoroughly undermined by 1783, when it was clear that Sir John Carter, leader in succession to his father John Carter (d.1794) of the independent party in the corporation, most of them religious dissenters like himself, was virtually patron, the borough remaining a close one. He guaranteed the return of Fetherstonhaugh, son of a former Member for the borough and, rather than endanger his hold, ceded to the ‘madness of the day’ in 1784 when Adm.
William Jolliffe had succeeded his father John Jolliffe as sole patron of Petersfield in 1771, and after 1774 was unchallenged until his death in 1802, when his son Hylton Jolliffe succeeded him. Both returned themselves for one seat and took guests for the other. Their choice of guests was connected with their political vagaries, but they were not necessarily returnedgratis.
The franchise at Newtown was vested in 33 burgage tenures, some of them split, so that there were 39 potential voters. It was, however, a close borough.
Oldfield’s analysis of the corporation in 1792 showed how completely it was under the control of the patron, Rev. Leonard Holmes (formerly Troughear) who had inherited it from his maternal uncle Thomas Holmes, Baron Holmes [I], in 1764. Holmes had not been seriously challenged since 1768, but there was a domestic contest in 1784 and his nominees in 1790 both attended their election, as well as paying £4,200 each for the honour.
Since 1774 this close borough had been controlled solely by Sir Harry Burrard, 1st Bt., of Walhampton. On his death in 1791, control passed to the sitting Members, his nephew and heir Harry (known from 1795 as Sir Harry Neale) and to his other nephew and namesake. The latter then vacated his seat and resumed it only as a stopgap in 1802. The cousins disposed of that seat to guests, and Neale of his own seat when he did not wish to sit. On Burrard’s death in 1813, his interest devolved on Neale’s brother George.
The Wallops, earls of Portsmouth, seated at nearby Hurstbourne Park, named one Member from their family circle virtually throughout the 18th century; and since 1768 Joshua Iremonger, residing even nearer at Wherwell, had returned his half-brother Lethieullier for the other seat. There had been no contest since 1774, and although the Treasury listed the borough as open before the election of 1790 they classified it as close before that of 1796. Close it remained, but not in the same co-patrons.
Till 1734 the Winchester corporation returned the relations of Charles Powlett, 3rd Duke of Bolton, the lord lieutenant of the county, and George Brydges, a neighbouring landowner, related to the 1st Duke of Chandos. An undated letter shows the two dukes, on behalf of Brydges, representing to Walpole that it was of consequence to the interest at Winchester that a patent applied for by the corporation should be passed immediately.Cholmondeley (Houghton) mss 3264.
