St Germans

St Germans, on the River Tiddy in eastern Cornwall, had been a major ecclesiastical centre in the middle ages, thanks to the wealth and importance of its priory. The dissolution of the monasteries brought a rapid decline in the fortunes of the town, which was described by Richard Carew† in the early seventeenth century as having ‘many inhabitants and sundry ruins but little wealth, occasioned either through abandoning their fishing trade, as some conceive, or by their being abandoned of the religious people, as the great sort imagine’.1 Carew, Cornw. 109. The priory had been purchased by the Eliots in 1565 and turned into a grand mansion, Port Eliot. As the family also leased the manor of Cuddenbeake, which formed the other half of the borough lands, from the bishops of Exeter, their influence over the town was unequalled. The wider parish of St Germans contained many other prominent gentry families, notably the Moyles of Bake, the Kekewiches of Catchfrench and the Scawens of Molenick, but their influence was secondary.2 Parochial Hist. of Cornw. ii. 48, 53-5. Eliot power was also bolstered by the loose hierarchy of the borough, which was governed not by a mayor and corporation but by a portreeve (who acted as a bailiff) and his deputy, who were elected annually at the manorial court leet, presumably with the approval of the Eliot family.3 Parochial Hist. of Cornw. ii. 57-8. Although the right of election was fairly broad, encompassing all the inhabitants, the role of the portreeve as returning officer and the small number of voters did nothing to encourage a sense of corporate identity. It was estimated that the borough had no more than 50 or 60 households during Charles I’s reign, and this accords with the number of voters listed in election indentures: as many as 50 in 1624-8 and around 40 in 1659.4 Parochial Hist. of Cornw. ii. 57; HP Commons 1604-1629, ‘St Germans’; C219/46/22. Despite holding the trump cards, the Eliot interest was not unchallenged early in the seventeenth century. The bishops of Exeter were keen to return their own candidates to one of the seats, and the Kekewiches, in particular, had an influence in the town until the early 1620s. It was only at the end of that decade that Sir John Eliot† could expect to return his own candidates for both seats.5 HP Commons 1604-1629.

The death of Sir John Eliot in the Tower of London in 1632 encouraged the rival local families to reassert their position in St Germans. Eliot’s heir, John Eliot*, was a minor at the time of his father’s death, and even in later years did not enjoy the political clout that the family had commanded in the 1620s. The indentures for the Short Parliament elections in the spring of 1640 do not survive, but Eliot was himself returned, and alongside him William Scawen, a local gentleman with connections at court. The duchy of Cornwall, which had never had much influence in the borough, ventured to put forward its own nominee, Francis Palmes, but was ignored.6 DCO, ‘letters and warrants, 1639-43’, f. 44v.

The election for the Long Parliament proved deeply divisive. The presiding portreeve was George Kekewich*, and in what seems to have been a chaotic contest three MPs were returned: Benjamin Valentine (an old ally of Sir John Eliot who had sat for the constituency in 1628), William Scawen, and the son of another local landowner, John Moyle I (who was probably backed by the Kekewiches and their allies, the Bullers).7 Cornw. Protestation Returns, 244; cf. Coate, Cornw. 24. The matter was considered by the House of Commons on 5 December, when ‘it was alleged that Mr Valentine’s election was clear without controversy’ and so he was allowed to continue to sit until the privileges committee reported.8 D’Ewes (N), 107. When the dispute was again brought before the Commons in January 1641, it was resolved that Valentine’s election was good, and ‘that he shall sit here as a Member’, while Moyle was told to wait until his case could be investigated further.9 CJ ii. 63b. Sir Simonds D’Ewes* noted, ‘there was nothing questioned but the validity of the returns’, but this was something of an understatement.10 D’Ewes (N), 222. Further light is shed on the case by a letter from John Moyle II* to Sir Richard Buller*, of 18 December 1640, thanking him and his sons (Francis* and George*) for the ‘courtesy which you showed my son in answering Sir William Morison who would have had any hour outed [him] of the House till he made his election to appear lawful’. Moyle then attacked Scawen, accusing him of underhand tactics.

I know not what Mr Scawen intends by his vain course of his. I am ashamed that a man that accounts himself a wit should on no matter prosecute a suit so foolishly in such a place. He says he had three or four scot and lot men more than my son. In what he means by it I know not, but think it a device of his own brain to put some colour on a bad business; for all the inhabitants against [i.e. next to] St Germans have time out of mind (that dwell in the king’s borough) had voices as well the poor as the rich and that only scot and lot men should have voices (and none but they) they never heard of, and yet if it were so, my son hath of them more than he.11 Antony House, Carew-Pole BC/24/2/60.

The Journal does not record the final decision, but it evidently went against Scawen as Moyle was active in the Commons after May 1641, and in June his father again thanked Francis Buller ‘for your great love showed unto me and my son’ - presumably in connection with the electoral dispute.12 Antony House, Carew-Pole BC/24/4/23. Erroneous reports of Moyle’s death in the autumn of 1646 led to a Commons’ order in November for a new election at St Germans, and a writ was issued in March 1647. But given that the seat was not vacant there is, unsurprisingly, no evidence to support claims that Scawen was elected in Moyle’s place.13 CJ iv. 719a; C231/6, p. 85; Coate, Cornw. 377.

Benjamin Valentine and John Moyle I were not secluded at Pride’s Purge, and they continued as MPs for St Germans until their deaths in 1651 and 1652 respectively. No by-elections for the borough took place during the remainder of the Rump Parliament. St Germans was disenfranchised under the Instrument of Government in 1653, but reappeared as a constituency in the elections for Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament of 1659. The election indentures, dated 14 January 1659, suggest that the Eliot interest was now at a low ebb. The portreeve was John Moyle II (who seems to have increased his influence in the town), and the MPs returned were the serjeant-at-law and former royalist Sir John Glanville (who may have been backed by his friends, the Edgcumbes of Mount Edgcumbe) and the moderate parliamentarian (and possibly the Moyle candidate), John Seyntaubyn.14 C219/46/22-3; Cornw. RO, ME/693, 841, 3041, 3052. St Germans was once again unfortunate in its choice of MPs. On 12 February the Commons resolved that Glanville was ‘a person not qualified to sit in the this House’; on 17 March Seyntaubyn chose to sit for his other seat, St Ives, and a new writ was ordered to be issued.15 CJ vii. 603a, 615a. The Restoration saw the return of the Eliot influence over St Germans, and the family’s candidates were returned without demur until the late 1680s.16 HP Commons 1660-90.