Horsham was a manorial borough where the franchise was vested in the burgage holders, who numbered 54 in 1611 but had increased to 68 by 1686. In this period there appears to have been some splitting of burgages for electoral purposes but the overall number of burgage holders had only increased to 69 by 1720.

East Grinstead was a borough by prescription, where the right of election traditionally lay with some 40 burgage holders. From time to time the inhabitants paying scot and lot had successfully claimed the right to vote, notably between 1679 and 1681, but their claim had been denied by the Commons in 1689, when it overturned a report of the elections committee which had favoured the wider franchise.

Chichester had held a charter since the 12th century, although the charter in force in this period was that imposed by James II in 1685: it defined the corporation as consisting of a mayor, recorder and some eight aldermen and 40 common councilmen. There was no controlling interest at Chichester but the corporation, which was largely Tory dominated, had some influence in parliamentary elections, partly through its control over the election of the mayor, who acted as the returning officer.

Defoe described Bramber as hardly deserving the name of a town,

having not above 15 or 16 families in it, and of them not many above asking you an alms as you ride by; the chiefest house in the town is a tavern, and here as I have been told, the vintner or alehouse keeper, boasted that upon an election, just then over, he had made £300 of one pipe of canary.

Arundel was a manorial borough, its officials consisting of 12 burgesses and a mayor, the latter acting as the returning officer. The chief interest lay with the Duke of Norfolk, who owned the manor and whose castle dominated the town. Although previously a Catholic, Henry Howard, 7th Duke of Norfolk, had conformed to the Church of England in 1679, and after 1690 usually controlled one seat.

In addition to the usual party divisions in Sussex, there was considerable rivalry between its eastern and its western sides which was exacerbated by the method of holding elections in the county. Each election was confined to the town where the county court was sitting, and by law the county court met alternately in Lewes and Chichester.

Although dwarfed by the neighbouring city of London, Southwark retained control of its choice of Members, an independence maintained despite the competing jurisdictions of the metropolis and the county of Surrey. A charter of 1550 had established Southwark as the City ward of Bridge Without, but the borough had never been fully assimilated by the government of the London corporation.

The largest of the three pocket boroughs in south-east Surrey, Reigate became as much of a battleground for territorial rivalries as nearby Bletchingley and Gatton. The lordship of Reigate manor was the most important interest, providing its owner with an influence over the annual election of the bailiff, the borough’s returning officer. As several petitions indicated, the choice of bailiff proved a significant electoral advantage, particularly as the extent of the franchise remained in doubt.

Haslemere’s relatively isolated position in the south-west corner of Surrey did not spare it the close attention of the county’s politicians. Although the borough was no more than ‘a small town with a very indifferent market’, the limited size of its electorate encouraged much contention between rival gentry factions.

This ‘well-known and considerable market-town’ was a notable electoral prize on account of its status as the county town and as the venue for the county election. In the absence of a resident interest of sufficient strength to block external interference, Guildford’s two seats remained the preserve of the neighbouring gentry of west Surrey. Pre-eminent were the Onslows of Clandon Park, who had first represented the borough at the Restoration and, on the initiative of Sir Richard Onslow†, had cultivated the interest of the corporation since that time.