Under its Elizabethan charter the corporation of Orford consisted of the mayor, eight portmen, and 12 capital burgesses. The principal interest in the borough was held in this period by the Tollemaches, but the seats were not beyond the reach of other local gentry, notably Walter Devereux of Butley Priory, Sir John Duke of Benhall, and Thomas Glemham of Little Glemham. No contests are recorded.HMC Var. iv. 257.
The right of election at Ipswich lay with the freemen at large, who usually preferred a politically balanced representation. Of the Members returned in this period, seven resided in the town, and most were connected with the corporation, consisting of two bailiffs (who acted as returning officers), 12 ‘portmen’ or aldermen, and 24 ‘chief constables’ or common councilmen. The resistance of Ipswich to the Laudian practices of Bishop Wren had earned it the reputation of a ‘godly and holy town’, and dissent flourished, though it did not dominate.R.
Eye (Heya) was governed by a corporation consisting of two bailiffs, ten ‘principal burgesses’ and 24 ‘common burgesses’. The bailiffs acted as returning officers, and possessed large powers of control over the roll of freemen. Although correctly described as a venal borough, Eye remained faithful to local territorial interests throughout this period.
For several centuries Dunwich’s problems had been geographical rather than political. In a classic case of coastal erosion, it had lost its harbour and four of its six parish churches by the end of the 16th century. At the Restoration the annual feefarm rent was reduced from £12 8s.4d. to 5s., and in 1677 the sea invaded the market-place. The only property in the borough, held by the Rous family as lords of Temple manor, probably disappeared at the same time.
Bury St. Edmunds was enfranchised by charter in 1614, the right of election being confined to the corporation, consisting of an alderman (who acted as returning officer), 12 capital burgesses, and 24 common councilmen. The narrowness of the franchise and the proximity of Newmarket ensured that in normal times the borough was controlled by a small host of local families with court connexions, chief of which were Crofts of Little Saxham, Hervey of Ickworth and Jermyn of Rushbrooke.
The corporation of Aldeburgh, consisting of two bailiffs (the returning officers), 12 aldermen, and 24 common councilmen, controlled the freemen roll, though the right of non-resident freemen to vote was questionable. The cost of defence made the little town susceptible to admiralty influence, and the Howards, as lords of the manor, claimed the right to nominate one Member.
Few counties had been so strongly parliamentarian during the Civil War as Suffolk. Yet in 1673 a strong court candidate was defeated by a mere 76 votes, and after the Revolution the county returned two Tories to the Convention. The process began with the dominance of Sir Henry Felton at the general elections of 1660 and 1661. He avoided involvement in the Civil War, though he represented the county under the Protectorate, and by 1659 he had become an active Royalist.
In this period identical returns were made for Tamworth by the sheriffs of both Staffordshire and Warwickshire. The corporation consisted of 24 capital burgesses and two bailiffs, who acted as returning officers. Of the two important property interests, the castle took no part in elections after the death of John Ferrers in 1680; but throughout the period the owner of Drayton Park usually controlled one seat. Lord Paget, a Staffordshire landowner, also had a small interest; he used it consistently on behalf of his steward John Swinfen.C. R.
No polls are known to have been required at Stafford in this period. In 1682 the mayor wrote that ‘it has been usual here on all elections of Parliament men to accept for one such person as the high steward of the borough recommended’.
The Mainwarings of Whitmore, the Levesons of Trentham and the Bowyers of Knypersley exercised the principal interests at Newcastle. Two Parliamentarians, Samuel Terrick and John Bowyer, were returned to the Convention of 1660. It is possible that Edward Mainwaring, who had also supported Parliament in the early days of the war, was a candidate, since Mercurius Politicus gives him as Bowyer’s partner. In 1661 he was returned with Sir Caesar Colclough, an Anglo-Irish baronet who had influential cousins and a considerable number of tenants in the borough.
