Guildford was dominated by the Onslows of Clandon, two miles from the borough, and always returned at least one member of the family.

Gatton was a pocket borough. Its parliamentary representation was divided between the owners of the manor of Gatton, who appointed the returning officer, and those of Upper Gatton, each nominating one Member. The manor of Gatton was owned by the Newland family till 1751, when it was sold to James Colebrooke for £23,000. Upper Gatton was owned by the Docminiques till 1745, when it passed by inheritance to Paul Humphrey, who left it to his sister, the wife of the Rev. John Tattersall.Manning & Bray, Surr. ii. 232, 237.

In 1715 the chief interests in Bletchingley were those of William Clayton, the lord of the manor, and George Evelyn, who owned the adjacent manor of Godstone. After Evelyn’s death, leaving no issue male, in 1724 his brother was defeated by a government candidate, H. A. Herbert, who was succeeded in 1727 by another, Sir Orlando Bridgeman, both presumably brought in on the Clayton interest. In 1734 Clayton’s son, Kenrick, hitherto under age, was returned with his father, on whose death in 1744 the vacancy was filled by Kenrick’s younger brother.

The Onslows were the premier Surrey Whig family, with an almost prescriptive claim to one of the county seats. They did not attempt to gain control of the other, having learned by experience that the county ‘would not like it; would deem it an imposition, and taking too much upon ourselves, which is always unpopular’.HMC 14th Rep. IX, 519. Sir Richard Onslow, created Lord Onslow in 1716, ‘used always to talk to the Surrey country gentlemen as if he was nothing, and it was their interest and support only that he relied upon, which took with them extremely’.Ld.

Sudbury was an open borough, but the corporation could influence elections through the power of the mayor, as returning officer, to decide who was entitled to vote. At the accession of George I the chief interest in the borough was that of Sir Hervey Elwes, a neighbouring landowner, whose family had represented it, sometimes filling both seats, in most Parliaments since 1677. But in 1722 Elwes withdrew from politics to repair his shattered finances, leaving the corporation free to dispose of Sudbury to the highest bidder.

Till the beginning of the eighteenth century it was uncertain whether the franchise at Orford was in the corporation, a close body, consisting of a mayor, eight portmen, and twelve capital burgesses, or in the freemen. In 1701 the House of Commons decided in the latter sense, but since the corporation had the right to create new freemen it continued to control the representation.

At Ipswich the two parties were so evenly balanced that the corporation could normally control elections through their power to create new freemen.CJ, xvii. 528. Both seats were filled by government candidates without opposition till 1727, when the sitting Members were re-elected after a contest. At a contested by-election in 1730 a Tory country gentleman was returned, causing the Whig Member for the borough to warn Walpole that it was ‘high time to try to defeat the Tory scheme, which our always forward ones have begun’.Francis Negus to Sir Robt. Walpole, 10 Aug.

Eye was the pocket borough of the Cornwallises, whose estate of Brome was two miles away and who obtained a crown grant of the manor in 1698.W. A. Copinger, Suff. Manors, iii. 259. The only contest occurred in 1747 when John Cornwallis stood unsuccessfully against his brother’s interest.

At the accession of George I Dunwich was a decayed but independent borough, contested by Suffolk landowners, at great expense. In 1721 Sir George Downing, who had lost his seat in 1715 but recovered it in 1722, estimated that not ‘less than £5,000 would carry it for the person who should be his partner’; one of the sitting Members, Charles Long, was said to be prepared to pay the same sum rather than lose the seat, and the other, Sir Robert Rich, to be offering £50 a vote.A. Bence to Ld. Strafford, 5 Dec. 1721, Add. 22248, f. 131.

From 1705 to 1747 the representation of Bury was almost monopolized by its hereditary high steward, John Hervey, 1st Earl of Bristol, seated at Ickworth, three miles from the borough, which he had represented from 1694 till he was raised to the peerage in 1703. With one exception, the Members during this period consisted of his sons, his brother-in-law, his wife’s cousin, and the recorder, whose father had married a Hervey.