POLITICAL HISTORY 



inherent in the status of a burgess, and the freemen with the corporation 

 chose the member. But there were freemen resident and non-resident, and 

 the right of the latter to vote was a hotly debated question. Moreover there 

 were many respectable men who were not burgesses but who contributed to 

 the municipal charges and desired ^ to vote. The borough elections were 

 variously influenced : l by making a private roll of favourable freemen, and 

 excluding all opponents as not having been enrolled, and a by the wholesale 

 making of burgesses just before the polling day. One alderman of Dunwich 

 had a factor at Wapping who paid men to become freemen and then secured 

 their vote, though they had never seen the town. The same official was 

 said to carry the common seal of the borough in his pocket, and to give the 

 oath of a freeman when and where the fancy seized him. The earl of 

 Bristol 3 in 1725 promised preferment to a local parson, and then was some- 

 what indignant when his son was challenged by the defeated candidate on 

 charge of bribery. But open sale of votes was by no means unknown. 4 A 

 vote in Ipswich rose from the fixed normal value of 3 to 30 on the last 

 day of the election. The wise man remained undecided in his opinion till 

 the last moment, then took the money of one party and voted for the other 

 just to show 'he had no fancy to be hired.' Vanities such as scarlet waist- 

 coats were used as bribes, and rents were paid and pressed men redeemed by 

 candidates. On the other hand an appearance of force was sometimes 

 resorted to. A convenient frigate would appear just before the election and 

 press those who were likely to vote for the rival candidate. Boxers and 

 prize-fighters were imported in 1747 into Sudbury, though* in earlier 

 years Benjamin Carter the notorious mayor of this notorious borough 

 played their part and struck down and imprisoned certain who would have 

 voted for the opposing candidate. Gradually the territorial influence slipped 

 off the boroughs, and flourishing ones like Bury, Sudbury, and Ipswich were 

 left entirely to that of corruption. In 1747 Lord Bristol laments that Bury 

 is no longer the chaste and constant mistress he loved and valued. 8 ' Since 

 she is grown so lewd a prostitute as to be wooed and won by a man she 

 never saw,' he wrote to his son ' let who will take her.' The opposition to 

 his nomination seemed as unnatural to him as the late rebellion. Sudbury 

 openly advertised her favours for sale, and the mayor did a roaring trade in 

 promises to use his interest for many candidates. 7 Dunwich, in 1 8 1 6, a mean 

 village of forty-two houses and half a church, whose corporation would soon 

 have to exercise their electoral functions in a boat anchored over the town, 

 was under the joint ownership of Lord Huntingtower and Mr. Snowdon 

 Barne. 8 The few miserable hovels called Orford had for proprietor Lord 

 Hereford, while Aldeburgh's patron was Sir Claude de Crespigny, and 

 Eye submitted implicitly to the nominations of Lord Cornwallis. Nine 

 individuals sent to Parliament thirteen out of the fourteen Suffolk members. 



The restricted franchise was regarded on all sides as the root of the evil, 

 and great things were expected from the Reform Act of 1832. This Act 

 enfranchised j 10 householders in the boroughs and in the county ; jTio 



1 House of Commons Journ. 19 Mar. 1702, Sudbury. 'Ibid. 31 Mar. 1714, Norwich. 



' Letter Bk. of John Hervey, 9 Mar. 1724-5. * Par/. Returns, 1835, viii. 



' House of Commons Journ. 1702, Sudbury. * Letter Bk. of John Hervey, 23 June, 1747. 



' Oldfield, Rep. Hist, iv, 561. ' Ibid, ir, 566-7. 



197 



