Camelford

Camelford, situated where the main road crossed the River Camel in north Cornwall, had been part of the duchy of Cornwall since the fourteenth century. It had declined in importance by the beginning of the seventeenth century, however, and was described as ‘a market and fair (but not fair) town’, and, despite its parliamentary privileges, ‘yet steppeth little before the meanest sort of borough for store of inhabitants, or the inhabitants’ store’.1 Carew, Survey, 122. The borough was certainly small, with only 33 men signing the Protestation in 1641 – indicating a total population of no more than 150.2 Cornw. Protestation Returns, 199. During the early Stuart period, the Camelford electorate seems to have included resident freemen paying scot and lot – termed ‘burgesses’, ‘free burgesses’, ‘freeholders’ or ‘commonalty’ – and the borough was open to interference from a number of outside interests, including the Cocks, Carnsews and Killigrews, as well as from the duchy of Cornwall itself.3 HP Commons 1604-1629; Parochial Hist. of Cornw. i. 191-2. Little of this pattern of patronage seems to have survived into the 1640s, however. In the elections for the Short Parliamemt, held in March 1640, the duchy nominee, Thomas Twysden, plausibly the Kentish lawyer Thomas Twisden*, later MP for Maidstone, was not elected, and may not have contested the seat.4 DCO, ‘letters and warrants, 1639-43’, f. 44v. Instead a prominent local landowner, Piers Edgcumbe, was returned alongside the obscure Edward Reade (who may have enjoyed an indirect connection with the Carnsews). Edgcumbe’s election was no doubt facilitated by his uncle, Ambrose Manaton*, who was mayor of the borough at the time, and who signed both surviving indentures. The other signatories (13 in all) were ordinary inhabitants of the town, and seven made marks, suggesting they were illiterate.5 C219/42/2-3; Cornw. Protestation Returns, 199. The return to the Long Parliament that autumn of Edgcumbe and his brother-in-law, William Glanville, (on 21 October according to the indenture naming the latter) suggests that their local interest, endorsed by Manaton, remained the dominant force in Camelford. Once again the duchy candidate, Henry Wynn, was ignored.6 DCO, ‘letters and warrants, 1639-43’, f. 67.

The first civil war seems to have little impact on Camelford. The town was periodically occupied by the opposing armies as they marched through north Cornwall. It was, for example, the headquarters of the royalists for a few days in September 1642, and was held briefly by Lord Hopton (Sir Ralph Hopton*) in February 1646 before he retreated back to Truro, where his troops surrendered to Parliament.7 Antony House, Carew-Pole BC/24/2/120; Coate, Cornw. 206. Both Edgcumbe and Glanville sided with the king during the war, and attended the Oxford Parliament in January 1644.8 Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 573. In the same month they were disabled from sitting at Westminster, and an order for new writs was issued by the Commons on 21 December 1646.9 CJ v. 21a. The election of the Independent firebrand (and future regicide), William Say, as recruiter MP in April 1647 appears to have been the result of direct intervention from Westminster, and the involvement of local patronage networks is unclear. The election indenture shows that Edward Herle presided as sheriff, and that the electorate was led by Camelford’s mayor, Christopher Worthevale. It may be significant that very few of the 14 named voters (including the mayor) came from families who had signed the indentures in March 1640, but apart from Worthevale himself, who seems to have been a newcomer, nearly all those named had been resident in Camelford before the civil war.10 C219/43/18; Cornw. Protestation Returns, 199. This may indicate little more than the removal of royalists in the previous 12 months, and there are no grounds for characterising Camelford as a local centre for Independency.11 C219/43/18. As the indenture specified, William Say replaced William Glanville as MP; but there seems to have been some difficulty with holding the second election, as the Commons ordered the issuing of another election writ on 14 April 1647, just two days after Say’s return.12 CJ v. 141b. This writ was issued on 30 April, but there is no evidence that the by-election was ever held.13 C231/6, p. 91.

With the dissolution of the Rump Parliament in April 1653, Camelford was disenfranchised, and it was not until the third protectorate Parliament in 1659 that the borough again held elections. The return was made on 15 January, with the ‘mayor and commonalty’, led by the new mayor, Benjamin Gayer, electing the serjeant-at-law, John Maynard, and the local administrator and militia commander, William Braddon. Both were safe candidates, expected to support the protectoral regime. Nearly half the signatories of the indenture had also signed the return in 1647, suggesting that the borough had experienced no further upsets during the interregnum.14 C219/46/7. It seems that earlier interests were creeping back during this period, as when Maynard chose to sit for Newtown on the Isle of Wight, his replacement as MP for Camelford was Sir Peter Killigrew, whose family had had a degree of influence over the borough before 1629.15 CJ vii. 609b. Another factor in Killigrew’s favour was his status as cousin of General George Monck*, whose father had sat for the constituency in 1626. With the collapse of the protectorate in May 1659 and the restoration of the Rump, William Say briefly regained his seat in the Commons.16 Coate, Cornw. 301. From 1660 Camelford was again prey to competing gentry interests, although these were mostly different families from before, and only the reappearance of the duchy interest marked any continuity with the political landscape before the civil wars.17 HP Commons 1660-1690, ‘Camelford’.