Mitchell

The tiny town of Mitchell had been enfranchised at the behest of the lord of the manor, John Arundell† of Lanherne, in 1547, and in the seventeenth century it remained one of the smallest and most easily influenced boroughs in Cornwall. The Arundells of Lanherne, as recusants, were unable to use the benefits of lordship effectively, and the parliamentary patronage of the borough was controlled instead by their cousins, the Arundells of Trerice, whose seat was close to the town. Mitchell lacked a corporation, being governed instead by a portreeve appointed by the Arundells, and some of the more substantial inhabitants were graced with the title ‘burgess’, although they apparently had no authority over the town, except at times of parliamentary election, when two ‘elizors’, chosen by the lord of the manor, were responsible for choosing 22 ‘burgesses’ to create an electorate of 24. This complicated system had created a degree of confusion during the parliamentary elections in the 1620s, and the varying number of signatures and marks in the indentures of that decade suggests that there were already disagreements about the number of burgesses needed, and whether or not the inhabitants were entitled to vote.1 HP Commons 1604-29.

The problem resurfaced in the election to the Short Parliament, when Mitchell submitted a double return. The four indentures show that there were two distinct contests, held a week apart. On 9 March 1640 the first two were signed (or, rather, marked) by nine electors, headed by Thomas Rickard, apparently representing the burgesses alone. They returned a local gentleman, Peter Courteney of Trethurfe, and a lawyer associated with the Arundells, William Chadwell.2 C219/42/1A/23-4. The subsequent indentures, dated 16 March, were marked by 24 names, headed by one Thomas Bennett, apparently representing the inhabitants as well as the burgesses, who elected the local landowner, Samuel Cosworth, and another prominent gentleman, Francis Bassett.3 C219/42/1A/25-6. This was a dispute not only over the franchise, but also over competing political interests over the right of nomination. The Cosworths had enjoyed considerable influence over the town in the early seventeenth century, especially as they had close family ties with the Arundells of Trerice, but in March 1640 they seem to have come into conflict, and there were veiled accusations that the original election had been held with too little notice, as a ‘surprise’ or ‘sudden’ election.4 CJ ii. 10b; Aston’s Diary, 156.

The double return was considered by the Commons on 24 April. Cosworth and Bassett complained that they had been ‘chosen by the twenty-four’ as required by custom, whereas Courteney and Chadwell’s were ‘chosen by the major part of those that had true power of election’, the burgesses. It was also claimed that the majority of the inhabitants ‘did assent’ to their election, even though they had no legal right to do so. The Commons then went on to discuss whether the burgesses (who were said to number 19 in all) or the burgesses and inhabitants (making up the grand total of 35 people) had the right to elect. Their decision was pragmatic, rather than authoritative: ‘for the time: if this had been a great town, this might have [been] taken to be a surprise’, but in the circumstances, the original election should stand, and Courteney and Chadwell were confirmed as MPs.5 CJ ii. 10a-b; Aston’s Diary, 46, 156.

The ruling in April 1640 settled the electoral procedure to be used in Mitchell, at least for the time being. In October 1640, when the elections for the Long Parliament were held, there were no difficulties, and the indenture suggests that this was a victory for the Arundell interest, with ten marks legible, of which five had attested to the Courteney/Chadwell indentures in the previous April. The return of John Arundel I of Trerice, and his lawyer associate, William Chadwell, would seem to confirm this.6 C219/43/1/44-5. When Arundell elected to sit for Bodmin instead, he was rapidly replaced by another lawyer, Robert Holborne, who may have been another friend of the Arundells.7 CJ ii. 23a.

The Arundells of Trerice were prominent royalists, and both Chadwell and Holborne followed suit, being disabled by the Commons in 1644. On 9 February 1647 the Commons ordered a writ for a new election at Mitchell, which was apparently issued twice – once in February and again in March.8 CJ v. 79a-b; C231/6, pp. 74, 79. By this stage the patronage of Mitchell had been taken out of the hands of the Arundells, and the subsequent recruiter election, which occurred at some date between mid-March and late April, returned two young men deemed favourable to the Presbyterian party at Westminster: the Scottish peer, Charles Lord Kerr, and Thomas Temple of Buckinghamshire. Kerr had taken his seat by 9 June.9 Infra, ‘Charles Lord Kerr’. Temple was secluded at Pride’s Purge in December 1648, and Kerr was either secluded or withdrew from the House.10 Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 369, 387.

Mitchell lost its right to return MPs during the first and second protectorate Parliaments, but in 1659, when the old franchise was restored, the town again held elections. These marked a change in practice, with the involvement of the inhabitants as well as the burgesses in the return of a single indenture, although the traditional slate of 24 electors was adhered to. The list of names was headed by Peter Courtney as portreeve; the involvement of the ‘burgesses and inhabitants of the borough’ was made explicit on the indenture; and the lack of a factional element is suggested by the inclusion of one Nicholas Cosworth – probably a relative of the unsuccessful candidate of April 1640 – among the signatories. Intriguingly, one elector was ‘Rosomond Godsay’ – suggesting that women could also be included in the electoral process in a small community such as Mitchell.11 C219/46, unfol. The chosen MPs were both local men: a merchant, Richard Lobb, and the former treasurer of the commissioners for the security of the commonwealth in Cornwall (now turned Presbyterian), James Launce. With the Restoration, the patronage of the borough returned to the Arundells, with Sir Peter Courteney remaining a prominent figure as portreeve.12 HP Commons 1660-1690. The right of election was settled by Parliament in July 1660, with the 24 electors ‘claimed by custom’ being confirmed, while ‘the commonalty at large’ was now firmly excluded.13 Cornw. RO, CF/4722.