Jack is pretty much right, but IMO over-emphasises the number and importance of pocket boroughs.

] In the pre-1832 Parliament, most seats were in boroughs more or less under the control of a patron, either a prominent landowner or, in some cases, the Treasury. Some were under the control of the municipal oligarchy in the borough.

While some seats were in the pocket of a patron, I wouldn't say it was most of them. Lots of the seats were to some extent open: as Jack says, all the county boroughs, and most large cities. The vote wasn't wide open -- women and poor men didn't have the vote. The biggest seats -- like Yorkshire and Westminster -- might have 10,000 or more voters, but a thousand was fairly typical for a city. And while, as Jack says, some town boroughs were under control of the municipal oligarchy, this could be challenged, and sometimes successfully.

] Those seats that were more or less open, either the county seats or those like Bristol or Westminster where the borough franchise was widely distributed, were very expensive to contest.

In general they were expensive, but a popular candidate (and I don't think we're talking of Mr Palmer here) sometimes managed to get elected without any expense to himself if there were a fair number of people willing to donate something -- much as in modern elections, which aren't cheap.

] Getting into Parliament for a man in Mr. Palmer's position was essentially a process of finding a patron with a seat at his disposal and convincing him that you were the man to represent his interests. Either he would install you in a pocket borough or bankroll you in the contest of a county or open borough seat.

Not necessarily. Again, there were more-or-less independent candidates, who relied on the contributions of a larger number of donors. I don't think it's Mr Palmer's position that stops him going down this track to parliament, but his personality. Not one of your great charismatic popular leaders, is he? So he'd probably have found a local patron, who would introduce him to the voters as his preferred candidate: this would be a considerable help, but again, it wasn't automatic except in the rottenest of boroughs. Voters could choose not to vote for the patron's candidate, but as voting was not secret, the local landowner would have considerable influence. A decent appearance of giving voters a choice would be appreciated.