The chief interest at Corfe Castle lay with John Bankes, whose family had owned the manor since 1635 and usually controlled one seat. The other had been held since 1681 by Richard Fownes, a Dorset landowner and High Tory. In 1690 Bankes, who had only recently succeeded his father, declined to stand, being unwilling immediately to embark on a political career. This gave an opportunity to William Culliford, a local placeman in the customs service with a longstanding association with the borough. A defeated candidate himself in 1689, Culliford had previously managed the government electoral interest and had a justified reputation for venality. Fownes and Culliford shared the representation until 1698. In that year Bankes and Fownes put on a united front against Culliford and the fourth candidate, Edward Clavell*, a member of an old Dorset family with an estate at nearby Smedmore. Bankes and Culliford were returned, and on 12 Dec. 1698 Clavell petitioned against Bankes, and Fownes against Culliford. Clavell complained about the multiplication of votes for Bankes through the splitting of leaseholds, to which Bankes replied that a number of Clavell’s voters were not qualified. Fownes’s petition accused Culliford of treating, bribing, and intimidating voters. The elections committee reported in favour of Bankes and Fownes on 6 Apr. 1699. Although the House agreed with the first recommendation, it overruled the second by declaring neither Fownes nor Culliford duly elected. A new writ was issued, and both men stood at the ensuing by-election, in which Fownes was successful, with the help of the Tory Members for the county, Thomas Strangways I and Thomas Freke I. Culliford petitioned on 16 Nov. 1699, alleging partiality on the part of the returning officer, the mayor. His counsel later produced witnesses who claimed that not only had the mayor canvassed for Fownes but that he had been heard to declare that ‘no matter how the poll went he would return Fownes’. On the other side the sitting Member brought in evidence that ‘the mayor carried himself very fair in the said election . . . but that Mr Culliford made short speeches, and aspersed the gentlemen; which incited the mob to make a noise: and they abused Colonel Strangways and Mr Freke and others’. On 2 Mar. 1700 the House confirmed Fownes’s return.2

In the first 1701 election there was a rumour that Culliford intended to contest one of the seats, but it is not known whether he proceeded to a poll. Thereafter Bankes and Fownes were returned unopposed in every election until 1714, in which year they both died. The seats remained vacant until the 1715 election when, in a keenly fought contest, more than a hundred new votes were ‘very artfully made’, according to a correspondent of Browne Willis*, ‘many whereof since appear to be sham votes’.3