Buckinghamshire

In the seventeenth century, as now, Buckinghamshire was a prosperous rural county whose economy was inevitably overshadowed by its proximity to London. Thomas Fuller would pick up on this.

It is true of this county, that it liveth more by its land than by its hands. Such the fruitfulness, venting the native commodities thereof at great rates, thank the vicinity of London, the best chapman, that no handicrafts of note, save what [is] common to other countries, are used therein, except any will instance in bone-lace, much thereof being made about Olney in the county; though more, I believe, in Devonshire.1 T. Fuller, The Hist. of the Worthies of Eng. (1840), i. 193-4.

Thanks to those landed riches, Buckinghamshire had more than its fair share of wealthy gentry families, including the Dormers, the Whartons, the Verneys, the Temples, the Wallers, the Hampdens, the Grenvilles, the Goodwins, the Fleetwoods, the Drakes and the Ingoldsbys. Conveniently, an oversupply of borough constituencies eased the competition between them for places in Parliament.

In 1640 Buckinghamshire was the county of John Hampden*, the man at the centre of the Ship Money case and the hero of the hour. Electing him as their MP was the easiest way for his neighbours to signal their opposition to the king’s policies. The message was reinforced by choosing his old friend, Arthur Goodwin*, as his colleague. Yet they were not necessarily swept to Westminster on a wave of popular acclaim by the Buckinghamshire voters: there is one piece of indirect evidence that Hampden’s kinsman, Sir Alexander Denton*, stood against them. It would be claimed that at the Northamptonshire election, held on 19 March, some opposed one of the candidates, Thomas Elmes, on the grounds that he was a deputy lieutenant and that Denton had already been rejected in the Buckinghamshire election for that same reason.2 Bodl. Bankes 44/13, f. 27. Denton’s failure may have had other causes. It cannot have helped him that he had been the sheriff of Buckinghamshire in 1637-8 and so had found himself with the uphill task of collecting Ship Money just at the moment Hampden was on trial for non-payment, although it had been true that Denton’s efforts in that respect had been less than enthusiastic. Apart from the fact that it took place before the Northamptonshire election, there is good evidence that the Buckinghamshire election must have been held in early March. On 3 March Ralph Verney* indicated that he was about to set out for Aylesbury to participate, presumably with the intention of also attending his own election as MP for the town on 6 March.3 Verney MSS, R. Verney to ?, 3 Mar. 1640 (M636/4).

Hampden and Goodwin may also have faced opposition in the Long Parliament election on 21 October.4 Longleat, Whitelocke pprs. VIII, ff. 33, 34, 42. It seems significant that Hampden also stood at Wendover, the constituency closest to his estates and which he had represented four times during the 1620s. As he had already been knight of the shire once that year, he was vulnerable to the argument that the gentlemanly thing to do was to defer to someone else this time. Moreover, his election at Wendover on 22 October suggests that he was not completely confident of being allowed to take his seat as knight of the shire. This would explain why on 8 December 1640, just before Hampden informed the Commons of his wish to sit for this constituency rather than for Wendover, they ordered that the Buckinghamshire result was not to be questioned.5 Procs. LP i. 511, 518; CJ ii. 47a; Northcote Note Bk. 40 Unfortunately, despite Hampden’s fame, no other evidence about this possible contest has emerged.

Both Hampden and Goodwin died in 1643, one in a conspicuously heroic death fighting for Parliament and the other possibly as an indirect result of doing so. Together they had played a key part in the prolonged struggle to defend their county against royalist advances. Buckinghamshire lay between Oxford and London and so between late 1642 and the surrender of Oxford in 1646 it was one of the key battlegrounds fought over by the two opposing armies. Thanks in a large part to the efforts of Hampden and his friends, Parliament had gained fairly secure control of the eastern half of the county from the outset and so was able to use Aylesbury and Newport Pagnell as the lynchpins of its defensive strategy. But it was not until the summer of 1645 that Parliament could be confident of holding the western half. Royalist attacks were in the meantime a constant threat. This would complicate the moves to find replacements for the two late MPs.

By early October 1645 some of the Buckinghamshire parliamentarians were making plans for the imminent county by-election. The new MP for Wendover, Edmund West*, advised the other Wendover MP, Thomas Fountaine*, that he should move the writ in the Commons ‘suddenly’, apparently to wrong-foot their opponents. Moreover, West suggested to Thomas Wyan, deputy registrar of the court of admiralty, that the writ should be moved only after they had consulted with ‘Sir Henry Vane and the rest of our friends’.6 HCA30/864: E. West to T. Wyan, 4 Oct. 1645. This took longer than West had hoped and it was not until 30 October that the Commons ordered that the writ be issued.7 CJ iv. 326b. Immediately there were concerns that, as the royalist army still controlled parts of the western borders of the county, not everyone entitled to vote would be able to attend.8 The Moderate Intelligencer no. 36 (30 Oct.-6 Nov. 1645), 182 (E.308.16). It was later alleged that the royalist commander at Boarstall, on the border with Oxfordshire, had warned the freeholders against attending the election. There was even talk of him threatening to execute anyone caught trying to do so.9 Mercurius Veridicus no. 28 (1-8 Nov. 1645), 210-11 (E.308.28); A Perfect Diurnall no. 119 (3-10 Nov. 1645), 949 (E.266.15). West had meanwhile asked Wyan to get Fountaine ‘and the rest of our new Parliament men’ to tell the colonel of the local horse militia, George Fleetwood*, to move his men to Aylesbury. He also thought that it might be possible to station detachments from the army in the town.10 HCA30/864: West to Wyan, 4 Oct. 1645.

West’s intention was to stand for one of the seats. To that end, he deliberately avoided taking his seat in Parliament as the new MP for Wendover. The other name being canvassed by some was that of Fleetwood, who, like West, had been an active supporter of Parliament in the county since the beginning of the civil war. West was doubtful that Fleetwood could get elected alone, however. Other possibilities were Sir William Andrewes and Sir Richard Ingoldsby (the father of the Ingoldsby brothers), although their ‘infirmities’ made this seem unlikely. Wyan suggested Sir William Theed, but West warned him that this ‘may be of ill consequences’.11 HCA30/864: West to Wyan, 4 Oct. 1645.

One of the newsbooks, The Scotish Dove, provides the most detailed account of what happened at the election on 5 November:

there was in all nine competitors, seven of them devoted to set up themselves, two the county desired to set up in their names, (as it should be) the seven all conspired against the two and because they could not be all chosen, they cast lots which two of the seven should have all the voices; but I will not name them. Now when the country came in, to give their voices, they would have none of them, but chose the two despised ones, both of them are men of assured fidelity and godliness; and the sheriff, like himself, nobly without contestation, did his office justly, and made return.12 The Scotish Dove no. 108 (7-12 Nov. 1645), 852 (E.509.5).

The two successful candidates, the ‘despised ones’, were West and Fleetwood, who took their seats at Westminster within days of the election.13 CJ iv. 335a, 337a; The Scotish Dove no. 108, 852. The seven opposing candidates are more difficult to identify. One seems to have been the new governor of Aylesbury, Richard Ingoldsby*. Two days later (as reported by Walter Yonge*), Thomas Fountaine named a further two in the Commons two days later: ‘one Parson’ and Thomas Tyrrell*, a former army officer who had taken over the command of Hampden’s regiment.14 Add. 18780, f. 162. ‘Parson’ may well have been Sir John Parsons of Boveney, the sheriff of the county in 1638 who had since supported Parliament.15 Vis. Bucks. 1634, 97; Burke Dorm. and Extinct Baronetcies, 401; LJ v. 207b; A&O i. 50; CJ iii. 528a.

A petition challenging the elections of West and Fleetwood was presented to the Commons on 7 November.16 CJ iv. 335b. Press reports suggest that the main complaint was that the proximity of royalist forces had deterred would-be voters.17 Mercurius Veriducus no. 28, 210-11; A Perfect Diurnall no. 119, 949; The Weekly Account no. 46 (5-12 Nov. 1645), sig. A2v-[A3] (E.309.6); The Moderate Intelligencer no. 37 (6-13 Nov. 1645), 191 (E.309.11). The Commons referred the matter to the committee for privileges.18 CJ iv. 335b; Add. 18780, f. 162. Ten days later the MP for Chipping Wycombe, Richard Browne II*, was summoned to appear before that committee, probably because he was also governor of Abingdon.19 CJ iv. 346b. The real issue may not have been whether the royalist army had unduly influenced the result by deterring voters from attending but whether their parliamentarian counterparts had done so by swaying those voters who had turned up. The newsbooks that covered this story may have been keen to gloss over or ignore what could have been regarded as criticisms of the parliamentarian army. There are indeed hints of tensions between the army and the electorate. Neither Ingoldsby and Tyrrell could be considered outsiders, but they were more directly associated with the army than were West and Fleetwood, who, according to The Scottish Dove, were backed by ‘the county’. Holding the election at a time when royalist forces still threatened parts of the county was always going to be questionable. Probably Independent majority at Westminster was keen to boost its numbers by exploiting the presence of parliamentarian forces while they could, but the latter could not simply impose their own choices and their influence did not override local factors.

The committee for privileges was in no hurry to resolve this dispute. A decision was repeatedly deferred in the first half of 1646 and then seems to have been forgotten about until the middle of 1647.20 CJ iv. 432b, 438a, 443a, 447a, 518b, 524a, 529a; v. 251b. West and Fleetwood were allowed to continue sitting as MPs throughout. Finally on 26 July 1647 Sir Robert Harley* reported on the case to the Commons from the committee for privileges. The Commons ruled that West and Fleetwood had been returned by ‘a free election’ and that the result should stand.21 CJ v. 258a; Perfect Occurences no. 30 (23-30 July 1647), 196-7 (E.518.10); A Perfect Diurnall no. 209 (26 July-2 Aug. 1647), 1677 (E.518.12). West then indicated that he wished to serve for Buckinghamshire rather than for Wendover.22 CJ v. 258a-b. This was immediately overtaken by events. It was probably while discussing this matter that MPs became aware of the crowd of Londoners assembling in a menacing manner outside the chamber. Only after settling the question of West’s position did the Commons allow some of the Londoners to present their petition. Before the day was out the crowd had stormed the House. Four days later the Speakers and the Independents withdrew from Westminster. West and Fleetwood both continued to sit in the Commons, albeit somewhat intermittently, after the purge of 6 December 1648.

In the 1653 Nominated Parliament Fleetwood was one of only a handful of MPs summoned to sit for a county for which they had previously served as a knight of the shire in the Long Parliament. He was joined by George Baldwin*, who had been another enthusiastic parliamentarian within Buckinghamshire during the civil war. Fleetwood, although not especially active in the House, was sufficiently respected by his colleagues that during the final weeks of this Parliament he served on the council of state.

The 1653 Instrument of Government allocated only five county seats to Buckinghamshire. As Amersham, Great Marlow and Wendover ceased to be constituencies while Aylesbury, Buckingham and Chipping Wycombe were left with just one seat each, the total number of seats within the county had been cut from 14 to eight.23 A. and O. In 1654 Fleetwood was re-elected for Buckinghamshire. Three of the remaining four county seats went to three other local gentlemen, George Fleetwood*, Richard Grenville*, Richard Ingoldsby* and Sir Richard Pigott*, who were all prominent figures in the administration of the county. Ingoldsby had also combined that with a career in the army. The fifth seat was taken by Bulstrode Whitelocke*, who could also count as a local figure, for his estates were located just inside Oxfordshire. What may have mattered more was that Whitelocke was a national figure who could be expected to play a leading part in the new Parliament. He had only just returned from his successful and very high-profile embassy to Sweden. Sixteen Buckinghamshire gentlemen had written to him on 24 June encouraging him to stand and suggesting that he attend an election meeting to be held in The George at Aylesbury on 12 July.24 Longleat, Whitelocke pprs. XVI, f. 55. Whitelocke had declined this honour, however, and instead suggested one of the lieutenant-captains in the lifeguards, Richard Beke*, a native of the county who had been with Whitelocke in Sweden.25 Longleat, Whitelocke pprs. XVI, f. 74. This seems not to have deterred Whitelocke’s supporters who elected him anyway. But the five successful candidates were not unchallenged. A local Aylesbury innkeeper, who was also the town’s leading Baptist, is known to have campaigned against Ingoldsby on the grounds that he was unsympathetic to ‘the saints’. Ingoldsby subsequently got his revenge by beating up the innkeeper when they happened to meet in the Privy Gallery at Whitehall.26 HMC Egmont, i. 545; A Second Narrative of the Late Parliament (1658), 12.

The 1656 Buckinghamshire election was largely a re-run of the 1654 result, with one crucial difference. Earlier that year George Fleetwood had been appointed with William Packer* to deputise within Buckinghamshire for his second cousin, Charles Fleetwood*, as the major-general. In practice, he was the county’s major-general. His resulting unpopularity probably explains why he was not re-elected to Parliament later that year – the sole major-general or deputy major-general who failed to get elected to this Parliament.27 C. Durston, Cromwell’s Major-Generals (Manchester, 2001), 196. It is not even clear whether he attempted to stand. His failure was all the more notable as the other four successful candidates from 1654 were re-elected with little trouble. This was not the original plan. On 7 August Whitelocke heard from his friend the Hambleden woodmonger John Green, that George Fleetwood, Packer, John Biscoe* and Cornelius Holland* planned to stand for the four seats unless Whitelocke agreed to work with them. Green also passed on to Whitelocke a letter from some of the local gentry pressing him to stand.28 Whitelocke, Diary, 445-6. Whitelocke seems to have ignored the threat from Fleetwood and his allies, and in fact he did not need their backing. Whitelocke did not attend the election on 20 August, but according to an account he received from Green the following day, a party of 200 of Whitelocke’s supporters had ridden to Aylesbury on horseback, picking up other supporters on the way. On arrival at the election meeting, they helped ensure that Whitelocke was elected ‘unanimously’. Ingoldsby, Pigott and Grenville were then re-elected, with the seat previously held by Fleetwood instead going to Hampden’s son and heir, Richard*.29 Whitelocke, Diary, 447. Even without Fleetwood, this was an impressive and well-connected line-up, which explains why three of them – Whitelocke, Ingoldsby and Hampden – were subsequently elevated to the Other House. Grenville, however, fell foul of the decision by the protectoral council to exclude those new MPs they distrusted.30 CJ vii. 425b. He was not allowed to take his seat until the second session in early 1658.

The restoration of the old franchises for the elections to the 1659 Parliament cut the number of county seats from five to two. But as Whitelocke, Ingoldsby and Hampden continued to sit in the Other House, there was less competition for the two seats from among the previous MPs than there might have been. Pigott seems to have shown no interest in returning to Parliament and never stood again. That left only Grenville eager to seek re-election, but he faced opposition. On 10 January, prior to the election, the rector of Middle Claydon, Edward Butterfield, informed (Sir) Ralph Verney

I intend with God’s leave if the weather be such as I may safely venture abroad to see the knights chosen on Wednesday, and to take such as I can get to go along with me; most on this side will be for those two gentlemen. But here is talk as though the Anabaptist party were like to carry it on the other side.31 Verney MSS, E. Butterfield to Sir R. Verney, 10 Jan. 1659 (M636/16).

In the event, Butterfield did manage to attend the election.32 Verney MSS, same to same, 17 Jan. 1659 (M636/16). The two gentlemen to whom he was referring were probably the two successful candidates, Grenville and William Bowyer*. As his exclusion from the first session of the previous Parliament indicates, Grenville had been a critic of the protectorate, while Bowyer had avoided all involvement in public affairs since the execution of Charles I. Both men subsequently accepted the Restoration. Some of the inhabitants at Fenny Stratford tried to encourage Whitelocke’s son James Whitelocke* to stand, claiming that they had organised 300 supporters, but he had already been elected at Aylesbury and so declined the offer.33 Whitelocke, Diary, 504.

Of those who had represented the county during the period, only Bowyer, who sat in the Convention and the Cavalier Parliament, would do so again. Richard Hampden was only narrowly defeated in 1661, however, and his son John† sat twice in 1679. By then, the Whartons, in the shape of Thomas Wharton†, had gained a hold over the seats which would survive into the following century.