Bedford

The history of Bedford in the seventeenth century is now almost entirely overshadowed by its association with its most famous resident, John Bunyan. This is misleading for, although Bunyan undoubtedly exemplifies one strand of the godliness that was a feature of the town, there was much more to Bedford than this. The county town and only parliamentary borough, Bedford was easily the most important urban settlement in Bedfordshire. The composition of its corporation was complex and rather ill-defined, a situation which encouraged repeated disputes between the different interests throughout the seventeenth century. In theory, power lay with the mayor, the aldermen (those men who had already served as mayor), the two bailiffs and the burgesses, a group of fluctuating numbers who sought to guard their privileges against encroachment by the large group of freemen. The right to elect the town’s MPs had traditionally been exercised by the burgesses.1 Min. Bk. of Bedford Corp. 1-2; ‘Bedford burgess rolls’, Beds. N and Q iii. 93-4.

As with the county elections, the two Bedford elections for the Short and the Long Parliaments were repeat performances. Sir Beauchamp St John, brother of Oliver St John, 1st earl of Bolingbroke, had served as the town’s MP in the two previous Parliaments and now secured a easy victory to resume that role in the Short Parliament. The real dispute was over the second place. Sir Samuel Luke’s* candidacy at Bedford was prompted by his father’s decision to stand for one of the county seats: the Lukes had a strong claim to supply one knight of the shire but to have sought both county seats would have overreached even their extensive influence. Challenging Sir Samuel at Bedford was Sir William Boteler*, who had the major disadvantage of having been a Ship Money sheriff just two years before. In a bid to outmanoeuvre Boteler, the freemen challenged the right of the burgesses to make the election and returned a second writ in favour of Luke. With other more pressing concerns, the Commons did not consider the dispute until 1 May 1640. Its ruling was that St John, who had been named in both returns, should be allowed to take his seat, but that Boteler and Luke should refrain from doing so until after the matter had been investigated further.2 HMC 4th Rep. 24; CJ ii. 17b. As this Parliament was cut short a fortnight later, that further adjudication never came.

Exactly the same thing happened the next time. St John stood once more and was again elected without apparent difficulty. This time he seems to have taken his seat in Parliament from the outset. For Boteler and Luke, however, the battle for second place was a resumption of former hostilities. Unsure of victory, Luke now took things a stage further by seeking the support of the common hall, the body which comprised all the town’s adult male residents. A double return inevitably followed.3 C219/43, pt. 1, f. 199. The candidates then had to wait until the middle of July 1641 before the committee for privileges reported to the Commons on the case.4 CJ ii. 212b; Procs. LP vi. 90. Their recommendation was almost certainly in Luke’s favour and it was presumably on that basis that the Commons approved his election on 6 August.5 CJ ii. 239b; Procs. LP vi. 245.

Twice during the 1640s, in October 1643 and in August 1645, the town was the scene of minor skirmishes involving the temporary capture of the town by royalist forces, interrupting a period of otherwise continuous parliamentarian control. St John and Luke continued to sit until excluded at Pride’s Purge in December 1648. Both men withdrew from public life under the republic and the protectorate and so were unavailable to serve in any of the Parliaments of the 1650s.

With five seats being allocated to the county by the 1653 Instrument of Government, Bedford had little to complain about when, under the terms of that same redistribution, its representation was reduced to only one seat.6 A. and O. This replicated the provision made in the abortive bill for a new representative, as amended by the Rump in March 1653.7 CJ vii. 265b. At the next election, the Bedford burgesses preferred to use that seat to woo a major national figure, Bulstrode Whitelocke*. Whitelocke, who had only recently returned from his embassy as ambassador to Sweden and who was now about to become the senior commissioner for the great seal, was a native of Buckinghamshire and so could claim some, albeit tenuous, connections with the Bedford area. The date of the election given on the surviving election return is illegible.8 C219/44, pt. 1. What is known is that the mayor, Thomas Spencer, and other leading inhabitants of the town wrote to Whitelocke on 5 July informing him of his election, ‘carried by a hundred and twenty voices, exceeding the other party, not only in quantity, but in quality.’9 Longleat, Whitelocke pprs. XVI, f. 69. Who the ‘other party’ was supporting remains unclear. On 30 August the common council also admitted Whitelocke as a burgess.10 Min. Bk. of Bedford Corp. 84. Unfortunately, his Buckinghamshire links persuaded the Buckinghamshire electors (against his wishes) to choose him as well. As he was also elected by Oxford borough, the chances of him accepting the Bedford seat were always remote and it cannot have been any great surprise when he decided to sit for Buckinghamshire.11 CJ vii. 373a. A new writ was issued and on 4 November Henry Chester*, a local gentleman who had avoided any major role, even at a local level, during the civil war, was elected as Whitelocke’s replacement.12 C219/44, pt. 1.

The disappointment surrounding Whitelocke’s election in 1654 may have persuaded the Bedford burgesses to lower their sights in 1656. Still reluctant to give their only seat to a purely local figure, they found in Thomas Margetts* someone who had none of Whitelocke’s national stature but who combined a willingness to help the town with useful political connections of his own. A native of Bedford, Margetts had become an army administrator closely associated with John Lambert*. Although he had long since moved away from the town, some willingness to retain his links with Bedford is indicated in 1653 by his application to the corporation to be admitted as a burgess as the eldest son of his late father, a former Bedford burgess. It was not, however, until 11 August 1656 that the corporation agreed to this, making it likely that this was the date of the election.13 Min. Bk. of Bedford Corp. 99. Keen to impress his electors, Margetts subsequently wrote to the corporation to offer what help he could in promoting their interests in Parliament.14 Min. Bk. of Bedford Corp. 108-9. His efforts on their behalf seem to have been appreciated, for in August 1657 the common council agreed to repay the fees which he had paid on his admission as a burgess as a mark of their gratitude.15 Min. Bk. of Bedford Corp. 113. Following the death of Oliver Cromwell*, they asked him to present their address of congratulations to Richard Cromwell* on his accession as lord protector.16 Min. Bk. of Bedford Corp. 124. Margetts was again the choice for the Parliament called by the new Parliament, but, as the second seat had been restored as part of the wider return to the old franchises, the burgesses were able to balance him with their recorder, Samuel Browne*, the prominent lawyer and former judge who had hitherto refused to accept public office under the protectorate.

The Restoration and the 1660s witnessed a return to an older pattern of parliamentary representation in Bedford. In 1660 Luke came out of retirement to become the town’s MP for a second time, and three years later a St John, Paulet St John†, secured one of the Bedford seats with the backing of Sir Beauchamp’s nephew.17 HP Commons 1660-1690.