Huntingdon

Huntingdon, with a population of about 1,100 in the early 1640s, was no more than the third largest town in one of the smallest counties in England. In fact, for all but administrative purposes, the largest town, Godmanchester, located on the other side of the River Ouse at the point where it was crossed by the Great North Road, was little more than an extension of its neighbour. Taken together, the two communities were large enough to provide a perennial challenge to their main rival, St Ives, six miles downstream. M. Carter, ‘Town or urban society? St Ives in Huntingdonshire, 1630-1740’, in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850 ed. C. Phythian-Adams (Leicester, 1993), 77-130. For all three towns, the Ouse was crucial to their fortunes and, in each case, the ambitious scheme to remove obstacles to navigation on the river between Bedford and St Ives had the potential to revitalise the local economy. Not all recognised this. In 1625 the inhabitants of Huntingdon, Godmanchester, St Ives and St Neots had complained to the privy council about the methods used by the scheme’s promoter, Arnold Spencer, but in time they revised their views. Petitions were presented to Parliament in 1640 from Huntingdon and Godmanchester praising the benefits these improvements had brought. The Navigation of the Gt. Ouse between St Ives and Bedford ed. T.S. Willan (Publications of the Beds. Hist. Rec. Soc. xxiv), esp. 3-6, 43-4. However, these advantages proved to be only temporary as neglect during the war years of the 1640s caused the Ouse to clog up once more. In the absence of any permanent improvements to the river, Huntingdon remained a mere staging post on the Great North Road.

Throughout this period the town was little more than a pocket borough for the Montagus. The Kimbolton branch of the family had for some time owned land in the area and it was surely only a clerical error which in 1626 gave Viscount Mandeville (Sir Henry Montagu†) the earldom of Manchester, Lancashire, rather than of Godmanchester, Huntingdonshire. Had there not already been an earldom of Huntingdon (held by the Hastings of Leicestershire), Mandeville would no doubt have claimed it for his title. What interest the Cromwells had once had in the town ended for good in 1627 with the sale by Sir Oliver Cromwell† of his house and lands at Hinchingbrooke to Manchester and his younger brother Sir Sidney Montagu*. HMC Buccleuch, i. 266; iii. 319; VCH Hunts. ii. 136. While Hinchingbrooke House became Sir Sidney’s principal residence, Manchester built up what was, for the time being, an impregnable interest within the corporation. It was this rapid incursion into borough affairs by Manchester which was the real issue at stake in the series of disputes which had divided the town in the years between 1628 and 1631. Manchester’s protégé, Robert Bernard*, who may already have been acting as his steward, was installed as recorder and then led the negotiations with the Mercers’ Company of London over how exactly to spend the £2,000 bequest which had been left to them by the wealthy London merchant, Richard Fishbourne. The decision to spend some of the money on a lectureship at St Mary’s, to which the vicar of All Saints, Thomas Beard, was appointed by the command of the king, encountered opposition from some quarters within the town. It was to suppress such dissension that the corporation applied for a new charter in 1630. Hunts. RO, Huntingdon borough recs. box 12, bdles. 2 and 4; J. Morrill, ‘The making of Oliver Cromwell’, 24-31, in Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution ed. J. Morrill (1990). This charter, by abandoning the tradition by which the two bailiffs and 24 common councillors were elected annually in favour of a mayor and 12 aldermen appointed for life, created an oligarchy wholly dependent on the Montagus. Among those who found themselves thus excluded from the corporation was the town’s former MP, Oliver Cromwell* (Sir Oliver’s nephew), who, resigning himself to the completeness of the Montagus’ victory, sold up and moved away to St Ives. A Coll. of Ancient Recs. relating to the borough of Huntingdon ed. E. Griffith (1827), 109-15; Morrill, ‘The making of Oliver Cromwell’, 31-3. Once installed, the new corporation was able to govern the town under Manchester’s watchful eye.

The two elections held in 1640 were as clear a demonstration as possible of Montagu influence. Of the two representatives nominated for the Short Parliament, Robert Bernard was still very much Manchester’s creature, while William Montagu was Manchester’s nephew, being a younger son of Lord Montagu of Boughton. Griffith, Coll. of Ancient Recs. 121. This favour to Lord Montagu was repeated seven months later when William’s elder brother, Edward Montagu I*, was returned with Manchester’s own son, George*. Griffith, Coll. of Ancient Recs. 122. (Several weeks after his election Edward Montagu thanked the corporation by sending them a present of two does. Hunts. RO, Huntingdon borough recs. box 6, bdle. 4: chamberlain’s acct. 1640-1.) It is highly improbable that any of these nominations was contested. Although it became clear in time that cooperation between the Kimbolton and Hinchingbrooke Montagus could not be taken for granted, Sir Sidney Montagu’s ambition in the Long Parliament elections was focussed instead on a county seat and he is likely to have given full backing to his brother’s nominees for the borough. As yet, albeit to varying degrees, family members were united in their dissatisfaction with the king’s policies; it was only with the outbreak of the civil war itself that divisions emerged, with George Montagu and Edward Montagu I, the 2nd earl of Manchester (Edward Montagu†) and their cousin, Edward Montagu II*, supporting Parliament in ways which Lord Montagu and Sir Sidney Montagu could not accept.

On the death of his father, Lord Montagu, in June 1644, Edward Montagu I transferred to the House of Lords. Thus, when the Commons agreed to proceed with new elections to fill vacancies which had occurred since 1640, there was a strong case for a new writ to be issued to Huntingdon. This was ordered on 3 September 1645, just 13 days after the precedent had been set by the granting of the Southwark writ. Writing to the 2nd earl of Manchester on 22 September, Robert Bernard presented the resulting race for this seat as the latest chapter in the long-running dispute by which the local excise commissioners sought to discredit the county standing committee. Abraham Burrell*, the main target for the excise commissioners’ criticisms, saw a seat in Parliament as the surest way of gaining immunity against these attacks and set his sights on Huntingdon. To stop Burrell, his critics promoted the candidacy of John Pykeringe, younger brother of Sir Gilbert Pykeringe* and a colonel in the New Model army. Pykeringe’s religious beliefs had been publicised all too clearly earlier that year when, in a notorious incident, he had insisted on preaching a sermon to his troops. Bernard claimed that it was only because the mayor had been called away on business that Pykeringe’s supporters at Huntingdon were not yet assured of victory. Hunts. RO, M28/1/33. It may well be that, having been warned by Bernard, Manchester then mobilised his influence on Burrell’s behalf, with the result that Burrell won the seat when the election was held on 30 September. Perfect Passages of Each Dayes Proceedings in Parliament no. 51 (8-15 Oct. 1645), 404 (E.266.2); The Scotish Dove no. 104 (10-17 Oct. 1645), 822 (E.305.6). The description of those signing the election writ as representing ‘the major part of the burgesses of the borough’, may indicate that there had been a contest. Griffith, Coll. of Ancient Recs. 122-3. Pykeringe was doubly unlucky, for, having failed to win this place in Parliament, he continued his military career and died of a fever while on campaign two months later. Burrell and George Montagu continued to serve as the town’s MPs until Pride’s Purge in December 1648, when Montagu was among those secluded and Burrell withdrew from the House, securing re-admission to the Commons in February 1649.

Huntingdon lost one of its two seats in the Instrument of Government’s redistribution, although it was reallocated to the county. In 1654, when the first election held under the new system took place, both George Montagu and Abraham Burrell were still alive, but neither seems to have attempted to reclaim their old seats. For once the Montagus had no wish to use their influence on behalf of one of their own. Manchester was disaffected with the regime in power, while Edward Montagu II, who had inherited the Hinchingbrooke interest on the death of his father in 1644, preferred to stand for a county seat. Into this gap stepped the Bernards. Robert Bernard was still in office as the town’s recorder and, although closely associated with Manchester, had been more willing than the 2nd earl to come to terms with the protectorate. Bernard’s purchase of an estate at Brampton to the south west of the town for John, his son and heir, served notice that the family would remain a presence in the area for the foreseeable future. The animosity which Edward Montagu, now their neighbour, would later display towards them was not yet in evidence and, if Manchester was not prepared to support them on this occasion, it is likely that his cousin would have given them the backing they needed. The choice of John Bernard, rather than the father, probably made no difference to the town, especially as some must have assumed that John would one day succeed his father as recorder.

The case for electing John Bernard was perhaps even stronger in 1656. Bernard had made a distinguished debut as a novice MP in his first Parliament, and had recently married one of Oliver Cromwell’s nieces, Elizabeth, daughter of Oliver St John*. The Bernards looked likely to prosper and, with such impressive connections, the borough had every reason to continue cultivating them.

With the restoration of the old franchises in 1658, Huntingdon regained its second seat and could look beyond the now-predictable choice of John Bernard. Edward Montagu II ambitiously pressed the candidacy of his colleague, the secretary of state, John Thurloe*. Since Bernard, although far less prominent, was as keen as Thurloe and Montagu in their continuing support for Richard Cromwell* as lord protector, Montagu is likely to have recommended Bernard in combination with Thurloe so that the town could benefit both from Thurloe’s proximity to the lord protector and from Bernard’s local knowledge. Given their own links to St John, who was Thurloe’s original patron, the Bernards could hardly object to this arrangement – John Bernard is known to have come to the election meeting on 31 December direct from St John’s house at Thorpe, where he had presumably been consulting with his father-in-law. TSP vii. 586.

The knowledge that Thurloe was likely to be elected for Cambridge University may have tempted Montagu to alter his plans at the last minute, however. On 26 December one of Montagu’s closest associates, William Hetley (or Hebley), who had just abandoned plans to stand for Cambridge University, told the lord deputy of Ireland, Henry Cromwell*, that ‘I am now engaged for Huntingdon’, a remark which could indicate that he intended to stand there. Lansd. 823, f. 173. Until he had sold his estates to the Bernards in 1653, Hetley had lived at Brampton, and, through his wife, a sister of Henry Cromwell alias Williams*, he was distantly related to the lord protector. VCH Hunts. iii. 16; Pepys’s Diary, x. 182. If so, Montagu did not proceed with this alternative plan, preferring to flatter Thurloe by securing this seat for him. On 1 January he reported to Thurloe that his nomination had been accepted ‘with great alacrity’, while the mayor, Thomas Judson, confirmed this, telling Thurloe that both he and Bernard had been elected unanimously. TSP vii. 586, 588. Montagu was therefore probably not too disappointed when it was confirmed that Thurloe had also been elected for Cambridge University and for the new constituency of Wisbech. Unsurprisingly, Thurloe then decided to sit for the more prestigious university seat. When Thurloe announced his choice to the Commons on 23 February 1659 a new writ was moved for Huntingdon. CJ vii. 606b; Burton’s Diary, iii. 450. As Parliament was not dissolved until 22 April, there should have been time in which to hold a new election, but no record of one survives and there is no MP whose presence in this Parliament is otherwise unaccounted for who might have been returned in such a by-election.

Manchester’s re-emergence as a major political figure from 1660 onwards might have been expected to bring about a revival of his interest in this borough. In the event, it was the 1st earl of Sandwich (as Edward Montagu II had become) and later his son, the 2nd earl, who, having fought off a challenge from the Bernards (now major local figures in their right), were to be the principal electoral patrons in this borough throughout the Restoration period. HP Commons 1660-1690.