Borough

The Mores of Loseley were lords of the manor of Haslemere, and their bailiff acted as returning officer. Sir William More was under age at the first two elections of the period, and the family interest was managed by his uncle James Gresham, who lived outside the borough but within the tithing of Haslemere. In 1660 he stood as a Royalist with Roger Heath of Shalford, the recorder of Guildford, and obtained from the bailiff Yalden an indenture duly signed and sealed, and witnessed by seven other ‘burgesses’.

The ‘approved men’ or corporation of Guildford, from whom the mayor was elected, consisted of eight aldermen and up to 20 ‘bailiffs’, or common councilmen. The franchise was not determined until the end of the period, and the electors are variously described; but the dominant Onslow interest was never shaken. In 1660 Sir Richard Onslow and his son Arthur were declared elected by the mayor, aldermen, and other ‘burgesses’, 37 in number, the poll having been apparently postponed as an insurance policy against defeat in the county election.

Gatton, already a classic case of a ‘pocket borough’, was controlled by Thomas Turgis, the son of a London Grocer, who bought the manor in 1654 and sat for the constituency in 13 consecutive Parliaments. His cautiously country politics harmonized with those of the owners of Upper Gatton, which passed from the Oldfield family to the Thompsons during this period. The constable of the parish acted as returning officer, and the indentures were signed by some 15 or 20 ‘inhabitants’ and ‘burgesses’, many of them local gentlemen, others imported from London for the occasion.

From 1643 to 1677 the 2nd Earl of Peterborough was lord of the manor of Bletchingley, but he appears to have exerted little or no influence on the elections. All the Members represented local territorial interests, and three of them were past or present inhabitants of the parish. At the general election of 1660 the two representatives of the borough in the Long Parliament, Sir John Evelyn of Godstone and Edward Bysshe of Burstow, were opposed by John Goodwin, a resident, and Edmund Hoskins of Oxted, who had sat for Bletchingley in 1659.

Before the Civil War the franchise at Sudbury seems to have been confined to the corporation, which under the charter of 1554 consisted of the mayor, six aldermen, and 24 ‘burgesses’. But the freedom of the borough was easily obtained, either by birth, service or purchase at the standard charge of £5 in 1662; and the freemen claimed the vote at most elections of the period.

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.