William Jolliffe had succeeded his father John Jolliffe^† as sole patron of Petersfield in 1771, and after 1774 was unchallenged until his death in 1802, when his son Hylton Jolliffe succeeded him. Both returned themselves for one seat and took guests for the other. Their choice of guests was connected with their political vagaries, but they were not necessarily returnedgratis. In 1794, for instance, when Welbore Ellis became a peer he offered his seat ‘freely’ to the Duke of Portland, who had originally recommended him to Jolliffe; and Portland resented Jolliffe’s claim that in returning his son-in-law Charles Greville as Ellis’s successor he was making a ‘sacrifice’ of his own son’s interest.1 Relations between Jolliffe and Portland were by then strained owing to Portland’s failure to secure him a peerage, and as if to emphasize his grievance Jolliffe returned his son with himself in 1796, but only for a brief interlude. It would appear that Jolliffe, who disliked the place and had taken up residence at Merstham, contemplated selling out in 1800, for on 10 Oct. James Du Pré* wrote to Du Pré Alexander, Lord Caledon’s heir:

I have had a great deal of conversation with [Harry Alexander*] respecting a borough (Petersfield in Hampshire) which is for sale. He had entered partly into a negotiation for my uncle [Caledon], who however has declined the purchase, I believe doubting the security of it. He strongly recommends it to me; should we conclude the business I think my uncle will take half of it ...2

Nothing came of this.

Hylton Jolliffe appears to have sold the other seat, at least until 1812 when he returned his friend George Canning I. The latter, who got in at Liverpool, was justifiably confident that he could name his successor at Petersfield, though, he remarked ‘by some strange mystery (I suppose) of Jolliffe’s, or want of erudition on the part of the Dogberry who returns’, his name was given as ‘J. Cannon esq.’.3 In 1818, for the first time in this period, the Jolliffe hold was challenged. Hylton Jolliffe was seldom in the neighbourhood. Behind the opposition was ‘Mr Minchin’, though his candidate was the London attorney and Pitt Club founder Nathaniel Atcheson. He received a few votes and was expected to petition against the return.4 He did not do so, but Jolliffe was thence-forward obliged to pay closer attention to his interest.