Newport

Newport originated as a settlement outside the gate of Launceston Priory, and by the seventeenth century it was in many ways merely a suburb of the neighbouring borough of Launceston, holding a fair and market but lacking the normal structures of a parliamentary borough. Instead of a mayor and burgesses, Newport was administered by a number of overlapping bodies, including the ‘eight men’ from the wider parish of St Stephen by Launceston who regulated the market, the officials of the court leet of the duchy of Cornwall’s manor of Launceston Land, and during elections two ‘vianders’ presided, apparently being chosen by the court leet and nominated by the manorial steward. These vianders clearly had a major influence over the election of MPs, even though the franchise was supposed to be based on the freeholders paying scot and lot. Unsurprisingly, this loose system encouraged the local gentry to interfere in the electoral process, and this in turn led to disputes during the 1620s. Before 1624 the dominant interest was that of the Killigrews, who were happy to work with the duchy to return mutually acceptable candidates. In the later 1620s, however, the Killigrews were challenged by others, including (Sir) John Eliot† and local landowners like Paul Speccott†, Nicholas Trefusis*, Thomas Gewen*, Ambrose Manaton* and his nephew Piers Edgcumbe*.1 HP Commons 1604-1629; W.P. Courtney, Parl. Representation of Cornw. 359; R. and O.B. Peter, Launceston and Dunheved (Plymouth, 1885), 53-6; Parochial Hist. of Cornw. iv. 168-9.

In February 1640 the duchy nominated the controversial Ship Money judge, Thomas Trevor†, as its candidate in the forthcoming elections, and the request was ignored; instead, the borough re-elected Nicholas Trefusis, alongside the Devonshire lawyer and known opponent of the crown, John Maynard.2 DCO, ‘Letters and warrants, 1639-43’, f. 44v; C219/42. On 17 April 1640 Maynard declined the seat, choosing to sit for Totnes instead.3 CJ ii. 4b. It is unclear whether a by-election was held before Parliament ended, although some authorities mention another former MP, Paul Speccott, as Maynard’s replacement.4 Coate, Cornw. 375. It may be in connection with this vacancy that Sir Samuel Rolle* wrote to Thomas Wise* in an undated note asking for ‘my cousin Maynard’s letter to Newport, if you can obtain it without opposition’.5 Antony House, Carew Pole BC/24/2/63. In the Long Parliament elections the duchy did not put forward a candidate, and Maynard was again returned, but again elected to sit for Totnes (on 8 Dec. 1640). This time Maynard’s running-mate was Richard Edgcumbe, who, as brother of Piers Edgcumbe, nephew of Ambrose Manaton, and brother-in-law of Paul Speccott, was a natural candidate.6 Procs. LP i. 508.

As an active royalist, Edgcumbe was disabled from sitting in January 1644, and as no new writ had yet been issued to replace Maynard, this left Newport without any representative for over three years, despite the House passing an order in September 1644 for the committee of privileges ‘to consider of the election and return of the Members for Newport’.7 CJ iii. 615a. Writs for new elections were eventually issued on 18 February and 22 March 1647.8 C231/6, pp. 75, 85, 86. By the time new elections were held on 19 May 1647, Manaton had been ousted as recorder of Launceston and replaced by the leading Presbyterian, Thomas Gewen, who had been MP for Newport in 1626.9 Cornw. RO, B/LAUS/350, p. 26. More crucially, Gewen was one of the vianders of Newport at this time, and it is his name that heads the signatories of the surviving election indentures.10 C219/43/47-8. This factional bias probably explains the election of an uncontroversial Cornishman with strong ties to both Gewen and Trefusis, Nicholas Leach. His fellow MP was the New English landowner and ally of Murrough O’Brien, 6th Baron Inchiquin [I], Sir Philip Percivalle. Percivalle may have had a local connection with the area, and there was a family of that name in the parish of St Stephen by Launceston in the sixteenth century, but there is little doubt that his election in 1647 was down to factional politics.11 Coate, Cornw. 245n; Parochial Hist. of Cornw. iv. 166. Nevertheless, it seems that Percivalle did at least try to represent his constituents, and Sir Francis Drake* told him on 10 September 1647 that he intended ‘to send your letters to your town of Newport, which takes your remembrance for a great favour’.12 HMC Egmont, i. 462. The relationship between Newport and its new MPs would not last long, however. On 10 November 1647 Percivalle died, and he was followed by Leach, who was dead by February 1648. The new MP, elected some time in August 1648, was the famous lawyer and critic of the Independents, William Prynne.13 Infra, ‘William Prynne’. Prynne may have been Gewen’s choice, but the direct evidence is lacking. He was imprisoned at Pride’s Purge on 6 December 1648 and did not sit in the Rump.

There was no further election for Newport during the Rump Parliament, and under the protectorate the borough was disenfranchised. In 1659, when the old franchise arrangements returned, Newport elected Sir John Glanville, a lawyer with strong connections to the Edgcumbes; but the principal seat went to George Monck’s* cousin, William Morice, who had purchased the manor of Launceston Land in 1651, and thus had the controlling stake in Newport.14 Parochial Hist. Cornw. iv. 169. When the Rump was restored in May 1659, Prynne again took his seat but was swiftly ejected, and he only returned to the Commons on 21 February 1660, when Monck allowed the return of the secluded Members.15 Coate, Cornw. 301, 309-10. The Morice interest continued to influence elections after 1660, but the older gentry families also played a part, with Manatons, Edgcumbes and Speccotts serving as MPs later in the Restoration period.16 HP Commons 1660-1690.