Suffolk

Parliamentary and corporation elections at Ipswich were still carried on under the colours of Yellow and Blue after 1790, but their significance had become so blurred that they served only to illustrate the factiousness of the freemen, one-third of whom were non-resident. Thus the sitting Members in 1790, Middleton and Crickitt, who originally sported the Blue and Yellow colours respectively, both supported Pitt and united as Blues against their Yellow opponents at that election, Sir John D’ Oyly and his Irish brother-in-law Maj. Rochfort.

Eye had been a pocket borough of the Cornwallis family, seated nearby, for a century and in effect remained so throughout this period, but it caused Charles Cornwallis, created Marquess in 1792, and his heir acute anxiety. The marquess was governor-general of Bengal from 1786 until 1793 and left the management of his affairs to his brother James, bishop of Lichfield, who expected from Pitt translation to another see as his reward. (He had to make do with deaneries.)PRO 30/8/125, ff.

This borough, reduced by coastal erosion to a small village, had been controlled jointly by the Barne and Vanneck families since 1764. By an agreement made then and renewed in 1803 they limited the number of freemen to 32, half to be resident. There was a nominal corporation of 12 and the two families supplied a bailiff each. They reinforced their predominance by joint purchase of local property.

In 1747 the Herveys, earls of Bristol and hereditary recorders of the borough, had lost one seat to the Fitzroys, dukes of Grafton. A compromise between the two families was not reached until 1802. A schism in the Hervey family, encouraged by the 3rd Duke of Grafton, prevented it; and after 1774, in alliance with the 4th Earl of Bristol’s brother-in-law Sir Charles Davers, he was able to exclude the Herveys from the representation. After 1780 they had no candidate ready. There was no change in 1790, but the borough remained open. The Grafton interest was on the wane and on 29 Jan.

Although Aldeburgh was classified as an open borough by the Treasury in 1788, it had been effectively controlled since 1747 by one family. Thomas Fonnereau was patron until his death in 1779, and subsequently (as at Sudbury) his brother-in-law Philip Champion Crespigny who, by ‘introducing honorary freemen’, ensured his control.

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.