Suffolk

The road between Colchester and Norwich served as an unofficial dividing line which split Suffolk in to two equal halves. Roughly speaking, the franchise of Bury St Edmunds, centred on the town of that name, lay to the west of this line and formed what was, for most purposes, a separate administrative unit. Another great liberty, that of St Audrey, situated around Woodbridge, lay entirely to the east. Everything else fell within what was called the Geldable. This complicated pattern of jurisdictions explained why the county town was Ipswich within the Geldable, yet the assizes were held at Bury, the major town of its franchise, and why four separate quarter sessions had to be held at Ipswich, Bury, Woodbridge and Beccles. Ecclesiastical administration, in the form of the two archdeaconries (Suffolk and Sudbury), divided the county in much the same way.1 An Hist. Atlas of Suff. ed. D. Dymond and E. Martin (Ipswich, 1988), 19; D. MacCulloch, Suff. and the Tudors (Oxford, 1986), 13-52. What united the county was its economy. Most of Suffolk, apart from its north-western and eastern extremities, was predominantly wood-pasture.2 Hist. Atlas of Suff. 15. The area around Eye which produced vast quantities of cheese for the London market straddled these administrative divisions. Similarly, the clothing industry, although concentrated in the Stour valley (the southern border with Essex), remained important throughout much of the southern half of the county. This was as true of some of the ports along the North Sea coast, especially Ipswich, from which the finished product was exported to the European market, as it was of the inland areas. In the past, cloth had been the source of enormous wealth, and by the mid-seventeenth century the Suffolk cloth manufacturers had managed to match the serious challenge with which their continental rivals had once threatened them. The valuable coastal shipping trade, particularly the transportation of coal from Newcastle to London, was another source of income for the ports, such as Aldeburgh, Southwold and Lowestoft. However, the decline of two of the smaller ports, Dunwich and Orford, left the county with what was arguably an imbalance in its distribution of parliamentary seats – too many minor east coast ports and not enough constituencies in the western half of the county. This was briefly rectified by the Instrument of Government of 1653. No peers resided within the county, so, except for occasional interference in some of the borough contests, aristocratic influence on the Suffolk elections in this period was minimal. The major electoral interests were those of the leading gentry families, of which that the Barnardistons were usually the most formidable.

The senior Barnardiston, Sir Nathaniel, had sat in the 1628 Parliament as one of the two Suffolk knights of the shire. Twelve years later, in the elections to the Short Parliament of 1640, he sought to reclaim this place. As early as 20 January 1640, seven weeks before polling day, John Johnson told the sheriff, Sir Simonds D’Ewes*, that Barnardiston and his nephew, Sir Philip Parker* – ‘two worthy and godly men’ – would be the candidates for the godly party in the county election.3 Harl. 384, f. 69. Johnson’s prediction proved to be well-informed: Barnardiston and Parker were indeed approved as knights of the shire at the election meeting at Ipswich on 9 March.4 Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v. An attempt had been made by Sir Robert Crane* and others (perhaps those who felt that the county should strongly endorse the king’s anti-Scottish policy) to put up Henry North* as a rival candidate. On this occasion, the attempt failed, evidently due to reluctance on North’s part.5 Bodl. Tanner 65, f. 124. It would seem that no other candidates came forward.

When the king summoned another Parliament that autumn, Barnardiston decided that he and Parker should stand again. By the beginning of October he was in touch with D’Ewes, who, as well as being a neighbour and an old friend, still held the key office of sheriff. Barnardiston first asked D’Ewes to nominate his eldest son, Thomas*, at Sudbury, and then, with reference to the county seats, informed him that he had ‘written for Sir Philip Parker and made known that I will accept of the place if they cast it upon me’. He also reported that William Cage* had given him ‘little encouragement’ from Ipswich, but thought that the town would be ‘stronger for me [Barnardiston] than before, for that we are now at home which were then absent’.6 Harl. 384, f. 64. This time, however, North had been persuaded to stand. On 29 September North told Crane the good news that ‘I am now upon my father’s command and the importunity of my friends yielded to put my self upon the favour of the county at this election’.7 Bodl. Tanner 65, f. 124. Crane declined North’s offer that the two of them should stand together (for he had hopes of being re-elected at Sudbury), but he almost certainly went on to help organize North’s campaign.8 Bodl. Tanner 65, f. 124. Evidence later compiled by D’Ewes, particularly the statements he took from the town constable, Samuel Duncon, an Ipswich haberdasher who was probably related to Robert Dunkon*, makes this one of the best recorded election contests of the period.9 Harl. 165, ff. 5-8; Harl. 158, ff. 285v-288, 293v-295; T. Carlyle, Critical and Misc. Essays (1888), vii. 61-74; Oxford DNB, ‘Samuel Duncon’.

Polling commenced amid some confusion at Ipswich on 19 October. From the outset D’Ewes’s priority was to avoid confrontation with the Norths, lest they should accuse him (correctly) of favouring Barnardiston and Parker. Unfortunately, what may have seemed to D’Ewes the fairest method was, in reality, an opportunity to be exploited by the unscrupulous, and, in the Norths, he was dealing with a family singularly lacking in scruples. The Norths easily gained the immediate advantage. D’Ewes began by reading the writ at the market cross at 8am. Of the three candidates, only North was present, for, in what can only have been an underhand move, D’Ewes had deliberately failed to inform either Barnardiston or Parker of the arrangements. North’s father, Sir Roger*, then persuaded D’Ewes to move the poll to a field on the outskirts of the town. D’Ewes went on ahead to prepare the field, but the platforms and stands were not yet ready when the field was overrun by North and his supporters arriving for the poll. The size of the crowd prevented D’Ewes from completing the preparations intended to control it. D’Ewes nevertheless proceeded with the registration of North’s supporters. About half an hour later, Barnardiston and Parker appeared.10 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 61, 68-9. The sudden influx of their supporters to this field only added to the existing crush and, in the commotion which followed, Barnardiston and Parker were ‘thrust down, and trodden under foot’.11 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 61. D’Ewes conspicuously failed to take the lead in restoring order, preferring to remain throughout at North’s table, leaving it to his subordinates to manage as best they could.

Most of the arguments over the next two days centred around how best the few officials present should be deployed to manage the vast numbers trying to vote. Both sides were quick to argue that they would poll much more, if only additional men were made available to count their voters. It took considerable effort and much confusion before Barnardiston and Parker got a table each. Only after further altercations was it agreed that their supporters need not queue twice to vote for them both. D’Ewes continued to be no help at all.12 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 61-2, 63-5, 68-9. At midday Barnardiston approached him to suggest that they break for dinner and that, ‘in respect of the great wind’, the poll should be moved back to the town.13 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 69. D’Ewes again sided with North and polling continued without interruption. Later, Crane complained that the officials at North’s table were unable to take the names quickly enough, especially as many of North’s supporters planned to return home that evening. Barnardiston conceded the point, perhaps in the knowledge that the advantage was slipping away from his opponent. Helped by the early start, North had at one point been 200 votes ahead, but by nightfall Barnardiston and Parker had both overtaken him by up to 500 votes. The Barnardiston-Parker camp retired that evening to nurse their suspicions that D’Ewes had been too obviously biased towards North.14 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 62, 64-5, 69-70.

The news that North was trailing did not please his father, and the next morning, on meeting D’Ewes, Sir Roger accused him ‘in violent and passionate terms’ of having ‘dealt unjustly and partially in taking the poll’.15 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 70. Ever anxious to be seen to be fair to North, D’Ewes agreed to allow his supporters to register their votes at two tables staffed by four clerks, while Barnardiston and Parker continued to make do with only one table and two clerks apiece. Polling closed shortly after midday. The count was then held by D’Ewes in public at the county court to avoid any hint of bias. D’Ewes even advised Barnardiston and Parker to accept all challenges made by the Norths during the count to avoid further arguments. None of these measures satisfied Sir Roger North, who began to discount the result.16 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 62-3, 65, 67, 70-1, 72. Even more provocatively, he turned up at the count to tell D’Ewes that he ‘would make it good with his blood’.17 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 71. Observing that Sir Roger was

accompanied with many young gentlemen and others, all or most of them armed with their swords and their rapiers, and fearing if he had made use of his just power to punish such an affront, much bloodshed would have ensued, he [D’Ewes] rather passed it over with an invincible patience; and only stood up, and desired silence to clear himself from these unjust assertions and criminations which had been laid upon him; and resolved to expect redress of his enemies from the high court of Parliament.18 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 71.

Sir Roger then led his son’s supporters through the streets chanting ‘A North! A North!’ Rioting was only narrowly avoided after this mob began insulting some sailors who had supported the other candidates. It took an appeal from Barnardiston and Parker to restore order.19 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 63, 65-6, 71-2. The counting of the votes resumed the following day and trouble again flared up when Henry North objected to the Barnardiston pollbook which Duncon had been responsible for compiling. D’Ewes had to step in to defend Duncon against Sir Roger North’s aspersions on his competence. By avoiding breaks for meals, D’Ewes completed his calculations that evening.20 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 66-7, 72.

According to Duncon, the count revealed that

Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston had 2140 votes, and Sir Philip Parker 2240 at the least – besides the voices of all such persons as had been admitted without the said high-sheriff’s knowledge, and were by him, upon numbering the same, disallowed and cast out. And the said Mr Henry North had 1422.21 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 72.

The figures given for Barnardiston and Parker by William Bloys* in his notes on the results of the Suffolk elections during this period are slightly different, attributing 2,186 votes to Barnardiston and 2,293 to Parker. These differences may well be the votes Duncon mentions as having been discounted. Bloys agreed with Duncon on the figure of 1,422 votes for North.22 Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v; P. Pinckney, ‘The Suff. elections of the Protectorate Parls.’, in Politics and People in Revolutionary England ed. C. Jones, M. Newitt and S. Roberts (Oxford, 1986), 206. With allowances for the complaints about the difficulties in registering votes, it seems very unlikely that the number of voters who had turned up to take part in this poll exceeded 4,000.23 Pinckney, ‘Suff. elections’, 208. (This is rather fewer than the 4,480 who are known to have voted in the 1673 Suffolk by-election, held following North’s suicide.) The result was made public the next morning (22 Oct.).24 C219/43/2, no. 168; Carlyle, Essays, vii. 67, 72. As Duncon pointed out in one of his statements on these events, however much one plays around with the figures, it is clear that North had been heavily defeated.25 Carlyle, Essays, vii. 73.

On returning to his seat at Kedington the day after his victory had been announced, Barnardiston immediately wrote to the corporation of Sudbury recommending that they elect D’Ewes as their MP. The corporation duly agreed. Barnardiston thus rewarded D’Ewes for the strains of the previous four days.26 Harl. 384, f. 65. His next letter to D’Ewes contained thanks for the way he had acted on his behalf.27 Harl. 384, f. 65. While D’Ewes could perhaps take some satisfaction from having mollified the Norths without endangering the chances of either Parker or Barnardiston, realizing that the result might well be challenged, he immediately began assembling evidence defending his handling of the election. Several statements were taken from Duncon and used to compile a detailed account of what D’Ewes and his officials thought had happened.28 Harl. 165, ff. 5-8; Harl. 158, ff. 285v-288, 293v-295; Carlyle, Essays, vii. 61-74. Barnardiston made sure that his relatives provided D’Ewes with further statements and advised him not to allow North to see the pollbooks, fearing that North’s men would try to use the information in them to intimidate his supporters.29 Harl. 384, ff. 65, 66. Despite all the Norths’ protestation, a petition to Parliament objecting to the result seems never to have materialized. The enmity between the Barnardistons and the Norths, which this election had demonstrated so clearly, nevertheless persisted. The 1640s saw the Barnardistons take on the leading role in county affairs, while at the same time largely marginalizing the Norths. Neither Barnardiston nor Parker sat in the purged Commons after late 1649.

The letters of nomination for the Suffolk seats in the 1653 Nominated Parliament survive and so give some insights into the process of selection. On 29 May 1653 52 members of the gathered churches of Suffolk wrote to the lord general, Oliver Cromwell*, with six names they considered suitable. Their suggestions were Jacob Caley*, Francis Brewster I*, James Harvey (brother of Edmund Harvey II*), Robert Dunkon, John Clarke* and Edward Plumsted* (in that order).30 Original Letters, ed. Nickolls, 94-5. Several of these six can be classed as religious radicals. Plumsted may already have been acting as a Quaker preacher at Mendlesham, Brewster had (with one of Plumsted’s cousins) founded the Congregational church at Wrentham, Dunkon had presented the Congregationalist, Robert Gouge, to one of the Ipswich livings, and Caley would later co-author a Fifth-Monarchist pamphlet. The latter fact is particularly significant, given that one of the other authors of that pamphlet was the preacher of St Peter’s, Ipswich, Benjamin Stoneham, whose signature was the first on this letter to Cromwell.31 B. Stonham, J. Caley and N. Cook, A Serious Proposal of Some Things (1659); Original Letters ed. Nickolls, 94-5. In a second letter, written somewhat later, John Lampeter and Henry Leach put forward names on behalf of the Congregational church at Bury St Edmunds. These nominations comprised the three chief burgesses who had come to dominate the Bury corporation – Clarke (again), Samuel Moody* and Thomas Chaplin*.32 Original Letters ed. Nickolls, 126. All three had risen to local prominence as tax collectors for Parliament during the 1640s and were now enthusiastic champions of the commonwealth. At least one of them, Moody, was probably a member of this congregation and, if so, was almost certainly among those who were funding the minister’s stipend.33 Original Letters ed. Nickolls, 155. This letter seems to have reflected a view that the Bury church had not been consulted over the previous letter. Although it could be countered that Clarke’s name had been included on the first list and, in any case, there were only five places available, there was some justice in this complaint. Clarke was the only one of the six men nominated in the first letter who did not, broadly speaking, come from the eastern half of the county. There may of course have also been an element of flattery in the wish of the Bury church to nominate three particularly powerful local citizens. Whatever the case, the council of state seems to have regarded the first letter as sufficient. Of the six names, they dropped Harvey and sent for the remaining five.

Overall, the effect of the 1653 Instrument of Government on Suffolk’s parliamentary representation appeared to be neutral. The smaller boroughs lost a total of eight seats (Aldeburgh, Eye and Orford losing all their seats, Dunwich and Sudbury one apiece), offset by the allocation of an additional eight seats to the county as a whole.34 A. and O. Of course, the nature of the contests changed completely, because energy now focused largely on the county seats. In 1654 these ten seats were contested by 18 candidates. One of those hopefuls was William Bloys*, whose notes of the result are once again a vital piece of evidence. The poll was held at Ipswich on 12 July 1654. By then, the four Suffolk boroughs still entitled to return MPs had made their choices. Most had selected townsmen and so reduced the county field only marginally. Perhaps only the two Bacons, Nathaniel and Francis, and Robert Brewster could be considered serious contenders for a county seat. Had Nathaniel Bacon not had such strong claims to it, John Gurdon might have attempted to regain his old seat at Ipswich. As it was, Gurdon now stood for and gained a county seat. His success bore out one of the marked features of the Suffolk result: the preference given to those who had sat in the Long Parliament. Of the 15 men who had been MPs for Suffolk constituencies at the time of the 1648 purge (one of the Aldeburgh seats had been vacant), five were now dead. A further three (Maurice Barrowe, Sir Philip Parker and Sir William Playters) had withdrawn from public life, while, as has been mentioned, Francis Bacon and Robert Brewster had secured seats already. Of the remaining five, only Brampton Gurdon declined to stand. Each of the four who did stand – Alexander Bence, Sir Thomas Barnardiston, Sir William Spring and John Gurdon – won a place. It is particularly striking that three of them gained places in the top five. This was in part a vote for experience, but also probably an expression of a desire for continuity after the aberration of the Nominated Parliament. In contrast, Francis Brewster, the one candidate who sat in 1653, and James Harvey, the one who had been nominated, both suffered convincing defeats. In Harvey’s case, the result was so embarrassing that he refused to hand over his pollbook.35 Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v.

The outcome of the 1654 poll was very much a victory for Sir Thomas Barnardiston, who clearly demonstrated that he had inherited the dominance in county affairs his father had once enjoyed. The measure of his core support is probably not so much the 1,150 votes he received himself as the 1,134 votes polled by his old friend, Sir William Spring. As at Bury St Edmunds in 1645, the two were almost certainly elected as a matching pair, and the combination now gained for them the top two places. The Barnardistons were also able to push their old enemy, Henry North, into eleventh place, so depriving him once again of a seat in Parliament. Significantly, neither Barnardiston nor Spring had shown enthusiasm for the commonwealth. Spring had been purged from the Commons in 1648 and thereafter ceased to play any part in local government. Barnardiston had refused to sit in the Rump and had then scaled down his involvement in the work of the local commissions. This same disquiet about events since 1648 is even more evident in several of the other successful candidates. Sir Thomas Bedingfield had resigned as a judge following the king’s execution, Bloys and Thomas Bacon had both refused to serve on local commissions, while William Gibbs had withdrawn from London politics and retired to Suffolk for the same reason. All these men had supported Parliament during the 1640s, but now wanted to distance themselves from the regicide and its aftermath. They had capitalized upon the mood which had also consigned the three candidates who were army officers (Robert Sparrow, Anthony Barry and Harvey) to the bottom of the poll. Like Harvey, Sparrow may have been reluctant been reluctant to hand over his pollbook after performing so badly.36 Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v. They were not necessarily acting in concert, although it can be noted that Barnardiston, Bloys and Bacon were closely related to each other, and that Gibbs and Barnardiston were neighbours. John Sicklemor’s political views at this time are uncertain (as yet, the recordership of Orford was the only public office he had held), but his success in this election probably reflects his links with Bedingfield and Bacon. In the case of Joseph Brand†, who received only 639 votes, his kinship with the Barnardistons seems to have been outweighed by his willingness to serve the protectorate.

This group did not monopolize the result. Gurdon, who had sat on the council of state from 1650 to 1653, received a respectable 976 votes to his name, enough to take him to fifth place. This is unlikely to have worried Barnardiston, for the two families seem to have remained on good terms. John Brandlinge and Alexander Bence were examples of men whose willingness to serve the commonwealth had increased their involvement in local affairs. Bence could, in any case, always depend on strong support in the Aldeburgh area. For Brandlinge, the election was being held on home ground and the bulk of his support is likely to have come from Ipswich voters. With ten seats to fight for, there was never much chance of any one group winning them all. However, almost half of the votes cast went to the six candidates who most clearly stood for doubts about the legitimacy of the protectorate. Those voters who supported the protectorate were, as a substantial minority, nevertheless able to claim at least three of the remaining seats. The outcome can thus probably be counted as a reasonably fair reflection of the mood of the county.37 C219/44/2, no. 25; Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v; Pinckney, ‘Suff. elections’, 206.

The election for the 1656 Parliament produced a shock reversal of the result in 1654.38 C219/45, no. 3; Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v; Pinckney, ‘Suff. elections’, 206-7. This time it was Henry North who (at last) emerged triumphant at the top of the poll, while Sir Thomas Barnardiston scraped home in tenth, and last, place. Barnardiston’s dramatic loss of popularity with the voters was almost certainly the result of his willingness in 1655-6 to work with Major-general Hezekiah Haynes*.39 Infra, ‘Sir Thomas Barnardiston’. The protectoral council evidently deemed Barnardiston conformable to the regime and allowed him to take his seat; but North, Sicklemor, Bloys, Gibbs, Edmund Harvey II and Edward Wenieve – the men who took the top six places – were all among those excluded as perceived opponents of the government.40 CJ vii. 425b; To all the Worthy Gentlemen ([1656], E.889.8); CUL, Buxton pprs. 59/104; HMC Var. ii. 271. (Sicklemor was subsequently allowed to sit after successfully petitioning the House in January 1658.41 Burton’s Diary, ii. 347.) What is more, the only reason why those in the next two places, Daniel Wall and Sir Henry Felton, were allowed to sit may well have been that they were unknown to the council of state. The government was so badly informed about Felton that they immediately added him to the Suffolk commission of the peace without appreciating that he was probably already an active agent of the exiled court. Wall seems to have been an obscure figure even within Suffolk. The similarity in the votes gained by Bloys (1,393), Gibbs (1,373), Wall (1,363) and Felton (1,362) may be just coincidence. Alternatively, it may be an indication of co-ordinated support. It is difficult to see how someone like Wall could have been elected except as part of such a scheme.

For Hezekiah Haynes, the result of the 1656 Suffolk election was nothing less than a humiliation. As the acting major-general in the county, he was effectively the official government candidate in the contest. He knew in advance that the Suffolk electorate might prove troublesome, which was probably why he decided to stand: there was a possibility that his candidature might overawe the populace .42 TSP v. 230. This tactic failed all too clearly. He received a paltry 809 votes, amounting to less than four per cent of the total. There can be little doubt that most of the Suffolk electorate were deeply unhappy with the rule of the major-generals, especially when embodied in a man such as Haynes. Tactical voting against him may be one reason why North and his allies had managed to overtake those candidates who had performed strongly in 1654 – notably, North’s now compromised rival Sir Thomas Barnardiston. A key ally for North may well have been the sheriff, Martin Salter, whom Haynes thought was ‘malignant’ and ‘simple’, and whose appointment he blamed on Nathaniel Bacon.43 TSP v. 230; Pinckney, ‘Suff. elections’, 215-16. (This need not mean that Bacon backed North. As one of Cromwell’s masters of requests, Bacon was now very much a servant of the protectorate.) Salter’s decision to hold the poll at Stowmarket can only have worked to North’s advantage. This location was only slightly closer to the Barnardiston seat at Kedington than Ipswich would have been, while being significantly closer to the North seat at Mildenhall. It also seems likely that this time North was better organized.

In the absence of information as to how many votes each elector was allowed to cast, any attempt to translate Bloys’s polling figures for 1654 or 1656 into useful estimates of the Suffolk electorate can only be very tentative. Quite possibly the key piece of evidence is that the number of votes cast in 1656 was almost double that in 1654. Although the turnout may have been much greater in 1656, the simplest explanation would be that the electorate had been given twice as many votes. But that still leaves a range of permutations which might conceivably account for the figures. On balance, the hypothesis which most satisfactorily reconciles the available evidence is that an electorate of about 7,000 had two votes each in 1654 and four votes in 1656. This would mean that the Suffolk electorate had almost doubled as a consequence of the Instrument of Government.44 Pinckney, ‘Suff. elections’, 207-12.

The reintroduction of the pre-1653 franchises for the 1659 elections had the effect of reducing the Suffolk electorate once again. In fact, the number who voted in this election seems to have been significantly smaller than that for those who had turned out at the last election under this system. At the poll held at Ipswich on 17 January 1659, a total of over 3,700 votes were cast for four candidates, suggesting an electorate of perhaps 2,000. (As before, these figures come from Bloys.) It seems that fewer voters took part in this election than had voted for either Parker or Sir Nathaniel Barnardiston in October 1640. However, there are grounds for believing that the 1659 figures are not a true reflection of the total county electorate. Given how narrow the field of candidates was, albeit one again including both North and Barnardiston, the turnout is likely to have been low. To many of the voters there would have been little to choose between the four candidates on this occasion – North, Barnardiston, Felton and Gibbs – especially as Barnardiston’s support for the protectorate had apparently waned considerably after (and probably as a result of) his near-humiliation in the 1656 election. It was perhaps only Felton’s involvement in royalist conspiracy that helped distinguish him from the other candidates. To those in the know, he would have been the only one who unequivocally favoured a Stuart restoration. Barnardiston’s success over North suggests that, in a straight fight between the two interests, the Barnardistons would still usually outperform the Norths. In the end, the result may have come down to rank, with the baronet topping the poll and the knight coming second.45 Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v; Pinckney, ‘Suff. elections’, 207; C219/48: Suff. election indenture, 17 Jan. 1659. Felton’s exact margin of victory is, however, uncertain. In recording the result, Bloys altered Felton’s total, probably changing the figure of 1,388 to 1,288, and the final digit of North’s total, so that it reads 834 or 838.46 Suff. RO (Ipswich), GC17/755, f. 140v.

The Restoration threw the differences between Barnardiston, North and Felton into relief. With the protectorate no longer a threat, the degree to which they had stood out against it became irrelevant. Barnardiston, who had openly backed Parliament against the king during the 1640s, did not stand again for the county and even at Sudbury in 1661 he suffered defeat. In contrast, the fact that Felton and North had both been effectively neutral during the 1640s allowed them to claim the two Suffolk seats in the 1660 and 1661 elections. It was not until after Barnardiston’s death in 1669 that first his brother, Sir Samuel†, and later his son, Sir Thomas†, were able to revive the family’s electoral interests.