Borough

Till 1747, the chief interest at Arundel was in the Lumleys, earls of Scarborough, who had inherited the estates of the earls of Arundel in the sixteenth century and sat for one of the Arundel seats in every Parliament from 1708 to 1747. The mayor, as returning officer, and the corporation were an important factor, while the government had a certain influence from the customs service at the port. The Duke of Norfolk was lord of the manor and owner of Arundel Castle, but as a Roman Catholic seldom intervened in elections.

Southwark, a populous borough, was a ward of the city of London, the returning officer, the bailiff, being appointed by the lord mayor. Brewing being the major industry, it was usually represented by one and sometimes two brewers, the other Members being London merchants. All the candidates returned were apparently Whigs.

At George I’s accession the representation of Reigate was controlled by Sir John Parsons, a Tory who had bought the Reigate Priory estate in 1681, and Lord Somers, one of the Whig Junto, to whom William III in 1697 had granted the manor of Reigate, carrying with it the appointment of the returning officer. The sitting Members were Parsons himself and Somers’s nephew, James Cocks.

In 1715 both Haslemere seats were won by Whigs after a contest with two Tories. From 1722 they were held by James Oglethorpe, a neighbouring landowner, whose family had often sat for the borough, and Peter Burrell, a wealthy merchant, jointly for 32 years; but there were other rival interests, notably the Molyneuxes of Loseley, who were lords of the manor, and the Onslows of Clandon, who had often been returned for Haslemere. In 1727 there were at one time no less than seven candidates in the field;Alan Brodrick to Ld.

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.

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.