Wisbech

The town of Wisbech was one of the two centres of population within the Isle of Ely, the other being Ely itself. Located on the River Nene, on the border between Cambridgeshire and Norfolk, Wisbech was a port with good access to the sea; Samuel Pepys† thought it ‘a pretty town’.1 Pepys’s Diary, iv. 311. By 1676 the parish of Wisbech St Peter’s had 1,400 inhabitants.2 Compton Census, 163. The whole area around the town had undergone fundamental economic change in the 1630s with the implementation of the scheme of the 4th earl of Bedford (Sir Francis Russell†) to drain the Great Level. Vast tracts of the Fens around Wisbech and Ely were being reclaimed, altering for ever the agricultural character of the region. In the long term, the draining of the Great Level prevented the Nene from silting up and the town prospered as the outlet for the produce grown on the reclaimed lands. The borough of Wisbech had been incorporated since 1549 and the unusual structure of its corporation ten chief burgesses elected annually had been confirmed in 1611. However, the 1611 charter had limited the right to vote in these corporation elections, hitherto held by all the householders, to the 40s freeholders only. Neither charter provided the corporation with a senior officeholder, but the chief burgesses found it convenient to appoint a town bailiff from their ranks.3 N. Walker and T. Craddock, The Hist. of Wisbech and the Fens (Wisbech, 1849), 319-20, 550-2; VCH Cambs. iv. 256-7.

Wisbech fell within the liberty of Ely, the semi-autonomous jurisdiction which had been ruled by the bishops of Ely, who had also been the most important landowners in the area. The town had thus formed part of the new county constituency of the Isle of Ely, created by the Instrument of Government in 1653. The two elections held for the Ely seats in 1654 and 1656 had taken place at Wisbech. On both occasions, one of the successful candidates was the secretary of state, John Thurloe*, perhaps the most notable resident in the town’s history. The Thurloe family had probably originated at Landbeach, a village between Cambridge and Ely, near enough for Thurloe to claim a tenuous link with the area. The disposal of the lands of the bishops of Ely in 1649 brought the manor of Wisbech Barton onto the market and Thurloe bought it from its two initial purchasers.4 Bodl. Rawl. D 239, p. 22; VCH Cambs. iv. 243. He thereby acquired Wisbech Castle, one of the ancient residences of the bishops of Ely. He proceeded to sweep away the late fifteenth century episcopal lodgings and, in their place, built a substantial country house.5 VCH Cambs. iv. 254; G. Annis, A Hist. of Wisbech Castle (Ely, 1977), 16-17. It seems unlikely that Thurloe would have yet had the chance to spend much time there, but it was a very visible indication of his intention to make it his family seat. His impact on the town was considerable. He had gifted it £200 in 1656 and had given 32 books (mainly works of theology) to the town library, which had been partly founded by William Fisher*. As patron of the living, Thurloe had nominated the local vicar and a special pew was constructed for him by the corporation in the church of St Peter and St Paul.6 Wisbech and Fenland Museum, Wisbech corp. recs. 1616-91, ff. 133v, 134; Wisbech town lib. catalogue, 1660-1830, p. 322; Pepys’s Diary, iv. 311; HMC 9th Rep. i. 294; VCH Cambs. iv. 247. He endowed a charity to provide apprenticeships to local boys.7 Reports of the Commrs. concerning Charities and Education of the Poor (1815-39), vi. pt. i. 295. In September 1656 he was appointed deputy-governor of the Bedford Level Adventurers and was granted 500 acres within the Great Level. The following year he was given the right to hold a market at Wisbech once a fortnight.8 S. Wells, The Hist. of the Drainage of the Great Level (1830), 308; VCH Cambs. iv. 262. In November 1657 he was elected as a capital burgess, and the result of the corporation elections the following year, in which five of the other capital burgesses, including Fisher, failed to get re-elected, may indicate an attempt by him to gain control of the corporation.9 Wisbech and Fenland Museum, Wisbech corp. recs. 1616-19, ff. 135, 137. There is every reason to suppose that it was Thurloe who obtained for the town its seat in Parliament.

The Wisbech election writ sent to the sheriff of Cambridgeshire in December 1658, together with a passing reference in the corporation records, provide the only information on why the town was represented in the 1659 Parliament. According to the writ, its burgesses had been granted the right to elect one MP to all future Parliaments by letters patent issued by Oliver Cromwell* under the great seal on 29 July 1658.10 C219/46: Wisbech writ, 24 Dec. 1658. The corporation minutes also mention the patent.11 Wisbech and Fenland Museum, Wisbech corp. recs. 1616-91, f. 137. Neither the patent nor its enrolment in chancery survive. The legality of this grant was dubious. The Instrument of Government had laid down that there should be no more than 400 English and Welsh seats and had specified which those were to be. It had given the lord protector no powers to add to them. Moreover, the section concerning Parliament in the Humble Petition and Advice of 1657, the ambiguity of which made possible the return to the old franchises in December 1658, said nothing on this subject. The grant to Wisbech thus rested on the assumption that the royal prerogative of enfranchisement had passed to the lord protector. No other borough is known to have been enfranchised by either lord protector in this way.12 B.L.K. Henderson, ‘The Commonwealth charters’, TRHS 3rd ser. vi, 129-62. It seems likely that the legality of the grant was queried at the time. In late December 1658, when they had probably received the writ, the corporation arranged for the patent to be copied and this copy was then sent up to Cambridge.13 Wisbech and Fenland Museum, Wisbech corp. recs. 1616-91, ff. 137v, 138. This may have been necessary in order to persuade the sheriff that their election should be held at all.

The election authorised by this writ was held at Wisbech on 6 January 1659. The corporation had earlier instructed the town bailiff to summon the burgesses to the town hall on that day between 8 and 11am for the election meeting.14 Wisbech and Fenland Museum, Wisbech corp. recs. 1616-91, f. 137v. Thurloe was almost certainly the only candidate. The indenture confirming his return was signed on 10 January by 29 of the ‘free tenants and householders’ of the town, the first of whom was William Fisher.15 C219/46: Wisbech indenture, 10 Jan. 1659 In the absence of any more precise information, this suggests that the right of election had been granted to the householders of the town, although it is possible that it was confined to those 40s freeholders who elected the ten chief burgesses. The deputy undersheriff for Cambridgeshire, John Frynne, was paid 40s by the corporation for attending the election.16 Wisbech and Fenland Museum, Wisbech corp. recs. 1616-91, f. 138. Doubts about the patent persisted. On 28 January two members of the corporation were instructed to seek legal advice about its validity.17 Wisbech and Fenland Museum, Wisbech corp. recs. 1616-91, f. 139.

The whole exercise turned out to be pointless. Thurloe had already been elected for both Huntingdon borough and Cambridge University, and, when the new Parliament met, he informed the Commons that he had decided to sit for the university. It was immediately ordered that a new writ be issued for Huntingdon.18 CJ vii. 606b. Nothing was said about Wisbech, however. (In his parliamentary diary, Thomas Burton* claimed that writs was ordered for both Huntingdon and Wisbech, but the Journal contradicts that.19 Burton’s Diary, iii. 450.) This looks like a tacit ruling by the Commons to the effect that Cromwell’s grant had been invalid and that the Wisbech summons should never have been issued. At a time when the revival of the old franchises was proving popular, this could not have been unexpected. The corporation probably continued its efforts to determine the precise status of its patent for much of the remainder of this Parliament’s duration.20 Wisbech and Fenland Museum, Wisbech corp. recs. 1616-91, f. 140v. Once Charles II had been restored, the Wisbech patent became unquestionably invalid in the same way as every other Cromwellian patent. Thurloe’s influence in the town was equally short-lived. It was no accident that the townsmen marked the king’s return by firing musket volleys from the roof of his house.21 The Publick Intelligencer no. 15 (4-11 June 1660), 232. No attempt was ever made again to enfranchise the borough.