Great Marlow was a borough by prescription which had sent MPs to Parliament for a brief period under Edward I and Edward II but whose right to do so had only been revived in 1623. The town had never been incorporated and the right of election was assumed to rest with the inhabitants. Many of them were Thames bargemen, for the town stood on the Thames at one of the major crossing points between Buckinghamshire and Berkshire. The bailiff, who was also known as the constable, acted as returning officer. The lord of the manor and the leading landowner within the town was William Paget, 6th Baron Paget, who thereby enjoyed the most powerful electoral interest in the constituency. VCH Bucks. iii. 71. Three neighbouring gentry families, the Borlases, the Hobys and the Whitelocke, would also all seek a role in the elections.
The election for the Short Parliament, held on 11 March 1640, resulted in the return of John Borlase* and Sir William Hicks*. C219/42, pt. 1, f. 65. In both cases, this reflected local landed interests. Borlase’s estates were centred at Medmenham, a neighbouring parish, while Hicks, who had already represented the town in the 1626 Parliament, was Paget’s son-in-law. Some attempt was made to challenge the result. On 28 April the Commons voted against referring Borlase’s election to the committee for privileges. CJ ii. 14b. It is possible that someone had objected on the grounds that Borlase was then aged only 20.
The calling of the new elections that autumn was a welcome development for Paget as he had been among peers who had petitioned the king for a new Parliament. The resulting contest at Great Marlow gave rise to a particularly bitter election dispute, which is exceptionally well-recorded. M.R. Frear, ‘The election at Great Marlow in 1640’, JMH xiv. 433-48. One of the participants, Bulstrode Whitelocke*, left several different narratives of these events, several other accounts were compiled, and one of the other Buckinghamshire MPs, Sir Ralph Verney*, made detailed notes on the relevant proceedings in the committee for elections. Whitelocke, Diary, 122-3; Add. 37343, ff. 208-212; Longleat, Whitelocke pprs. VIII, ff. 33-35, 43; Verney, Notes, 1-4. As before, Borlase started with the advantage of a strong personal interest. There seems initially to have been acceptance that he should be re-elected. The problem arose over the other place. Paget made his position on the matter clear by sending a letter of nomination in favour of Borlase’s stepfather, Gabriel Hippisley. Add. 37343, f. 209. An indenture was therefore prepared in the name of some of the inhabitants returning Borlase and Hippisley. C219/43, pt. 1: Great Marlow return, [21 Oct. 1640]. It was later claimed that this indenture was drawn up on 21 October, the same day as the county poll, and that because of this only about 20 people had been present. Add. 37343, f. 211; Longleat, Whitelocke pprs. VIII, ff. 33, 34, 42. The sheriff was presumably absent too. Some of the inhabitants were certainly unhappy with the choice of Hippisley, who, as a royal servant, may have been thought too dependant on the court. There may also have been a suspicion that the Borlases were trying to monopolise both seats. Steps were therefore taken to deprive Hippisley of an easy victory. A second indenture, also dated 21 October, was prepared electing Borlase with another local gentleman, Peregrine Hoby*. C219/43, pt. 1: Great Marlow return, 21 Oct. 1640. This was agreed at a meeting said to have been attended by about 120 of the inhabitants, of whom about 100 voted for Hoby. Longleat, Whitelocke pprs. VIII, ff. 33, 34, 42. In replacing Hippisley with Hoby, these electors may have hoped to gain someone who would be more critical of the king’s policies. Both indentures were then submitted to the clerk of the crown in chancery.
Thus far this appeared no more than a standard election dispute. One of the inhabitants, Toucher Carter, now made it much more complicated. Several days before the opening of the Parliament, Carter, a local attorney, visited Whitelocke in his chambers at the Middle Temple. Carter informed Whitelocke that on 21 October his name had been put to the Great Marlow electors along with those of Hoby and Borlase and that Whitelocke had received more votes than Borlase. The sheriff had ignored those votes, however. This was news to Whitelocke, who had not even been aware that his name had been considered. Whitelocke, Diary, 122-3; Add. 37343, f. 208. Another source would claim that Whitelocke had received about 30 votes. Longleat, Whitelocke pprs. VIII, f. 34v. Carter assured Whitelocke that ‘most of the ordinary people’ supported him and Hoby. Add. 37343, f. 209v. Following discussions with some of his lawyer friends, Geoffrey Palmer*, John Maynard* and Edward Hyde*, Whitelocke decided to pursue the matter. Add. 37343, f. 210. He did not have another seat – he had decided against standing for Oxfordshire – and he had nothing to lose. Conveniently, Maynard was chosen to chair the committee for elections and so was able to ensure that Whitelocke’s petition was one of the first to be considered. Whitelocke, Diary, 123; Add. 37343, f. 210. Reporting from the committee on 9 November, Maynard told the Commons that the clerk of the crown in chancery had refused to accept the second return from the undersheriff as he had already received the return in favour of Borlase and Hippisley, but that the undersheriff had left the second return at the clerk’s office. Despite Whitelocke’s influence with Maynard, the committee for elections was inclined to accept that Borlase had been duly elected as he had been named in both returns. The Commons agreed, voting that Borlase had been elected but, at the same time, ordering that Hoby should not sit. CJ ii. 23a; Add. 37343, f. 210v.
Hoby meanwhile submitted his own petition, while Whitelocke organised a petition from his supporters in the town backing his story. According to Whitelocke, the supporters claimed that some of them had been threatened in the days preceding the poll, that the town bailiff, John Moore, had kept secret the fact that the precept for the election had been received, and that the first poll had deliberately been held to clash with the county election. The petition also alleged that the second poll a week later had elected Hoby and Whitelocke, but that, when they retired to sign the indenture, some of the electors had had changed their minds in favour of Borlase because ‘if they left Mr. Borlase out, they were afraid he would not let them buy any wood of him, but do them many ill turns’. Add. 37343, f. 211. The Commons took seriously the allegations against Moore and one of their first actions when they debated the case on 19 November was to send a summons to him for him to appear before them. CJ ii. 31a; Procs. LP i. 187; Add. 37343, f. 211.
The other issue debated on 19 November was the extent of the town’s franchise. Hoby and Whitelocke wanted it defined as widely as possible, whereas Borlase and Hippisley maintained that some of those who had voted on 21 October ought to be disqualified on the grounds that they were too poor. This was seized on by some in the Commons as an opportunity to debate the general principle as to whether the poor should be allowed to vote in parliamentary elections. Sir Hugh Cholmeley* moved that they should and received support from Sir Simonds D’Ewes*, Sir John Hotham*, Sir Peter Heyman*, Edward Bagshawe*, John Whistler* and John Cowcher*. Maynard, Sir Miles Fleetwood* and John Crewe I* spoke against. Procs. LP i. 187-8. In the event, the Commons preferred to move on to other matters and the question was left unresolved.
Faced with so many competing claims, the Commons could have accepted Borlase and Hippisley on the basis of the first indenture, or accepted Borlase and Hoby on the basis of the second, or accepted either Borlase or Hoby alone and held another election for the second seat, or held another election for both seats. A technicality allowed the committee for elections to recommend a new election for both seats. The failure by Moore to make public the precept counted as a failure to give proper advance warning of the election. It was on that basis that the Commons ordered that both seats be re-fought. CJ ii. 31a; Whitelocke, Diary, 123; Procs. LP i. 187-8, 191, 194. For Whitelocke, who had been named in neither indenture, a new poll was the only acceptable option. For Hoby, a new poll was also preferable, as Whitelocke’s complaint had called into question the indenture by which he had been returned. For Borlase, on the other hand, the decision was a clear setback.
The new election was held on 23 November. Borlase, Hippisley, Hoby and Whitelocke all stood. Both sides had campaigned hard and on election day there were ‘some disorders and a little violence’. Add. 37343, ff. 211v-212. It would later be alleged that Hoby had hit one of Borlase’s supporters. Verney, Notes, 2. Whitelocke believed that he and Hoby had the support of ‘the ordinary sort of townsmen’ and of all the local bargemen. Add. 37343, f. 212. When the poll was taken, Hoby got the most votes, Whitelocke came second, Borlase third and Hippisley trailed in fourth place. This seemed to confirm the previous poll for the second indenture. Furious that he had lost out, Borlase nevertheless appealed against the result. Once again the Commons found themselves being asked to adjudicate. A committee was appointed by them on 1 December to hear the evidence. CJ ii. 40b-41a; Procs. LP i. 399, 402-3; Northcote Note Bk. 19.
Borlase raised several objections to the proceedings on 23 November. Witnesses were produced to testify that Hoby and Whitelocke had entertained potential voters. According to Moore, ‘three barrels [were] drunk by a multitude, and that £14 was spent in beer and tobacco by Mr Hoby’s friends’. Verney, Notes, 3. Moore had not in fact been present during the poll as it was also alleged that Hoby had obtained a warrant to summon him away from the town just before the election was held. Verney, Notes, 2-3. Borlase, however, had two more substantial arguments which formed the real basis of his case. The first was that in the days before the election Hoby had been appointed sheriff of Berkshire. It was generally accepted – although Hoby tried to dispute this – that sheriffs could not stand for election. Hoby admitted that he received his commission on 22 November, the day before the election, but argued that he had not yet formally taken over from his predecessor. It was therefore debateable as to whether he ought to have stood for election knowing that he was about to become sheriff and whether he ought to continue as MP now that he was expected to serve as sheriff. More explosively, Hoby alleged that Borlase had pulled strings to get him appointed as sheriff specifically so that he would become disqualified in this way. The implication was that the king himself had connived in a scheme to interfere with the election. Verney, Notes, 2-3; Procs. LP i. 399, 402-3.
The other main plank of Borlase’s case was that Hoby had received votes from men who were not entitled to vote. This reopened the question of who had the franchise in the town. One of Borlase’s witnesses, Matthew Cane (who was the man who claimed that Hoby had hit him), provided a detailed breakdown of the voting figures, divided between ‘givers’, ‘not givers’ and ‘almsmen’. Borlase had 45 ‘givers’ to Hoby’s 27, and had 47 ‘not givers’ to Hoby’s 49. Borlase had 21 ‘almsmen’; Hoby had 47, plus 9 ‘inmates’. Verney, Notes, 3. The distinction between ‘givers’ and ‘not givers’ was between those who paid scot and lot and those who did not. Borlase’s argument was therefore that if the franchise was defined in terms of the scot and lot payments, he had a clear majority among the qualified electors. However, even if those inhabitants who did not pay scot and lot were included, Borlase still had a majority over Hoby. It was, so Borlase and his supporters alleged, only by including those who received alms – in other words, the very poorest of the inhabitants – that Hoby had been able to claim a majority. Verney, Notes, 2-3. Hoby’s supporters did not dispute Cane’s totals; instead they argued that none of Cane’s 47 almsmen were receiving poor relief and that all of them were local ratepayers. They were even able to cite the current Bramber election dispute to argue that the inmates of the local workhouse were not necessarily unqualified to vote. Verney, Notes, 4.
The Commons never made conclusive rulings on most of these questions. The committee appointed to resolve the dispute met on 3 December and seems to have decided that Whitelocke’s election was valid. Procs. LP i. 442. The following day Denzil Holles* proposed a motion declaring that Hoby’s election was also valid. The only effect this had was that the next day the Commons declared that neither Hoby nor Borlase should sit in the House. Procs. LP i. 460, 471. What could not be left unresolved was the question of whether Hoby was sheriff of Berkshire. The Speaker, William Lenthall*, raised this with the king and was able to report back to the Commons on 12 December that Charles was unwilling to compromise. The king had assured him that he would not nominate any sitting MPs as sheriffs but had pointed out that Hoby had not been an MP when he had been pricked. Procs. LP i. 580, 582-3; Northcote Note Bk. 53. This did nothing to lessen the suspicion that Hoby had been pricked by the king in order to prevent him become an MP. More Members were added to the Commons committee on the Great Marlow case on 16 December and this committee was still active in early January 1641. CJ ii. 51a; Procs. LP i. 620, ii. 101. By 13 January they were ready to report. Sir Thomas Widdrington* informed the Commons that they were recommending that Hoby’s election be declared void. According to D’Ewes, this resulted in ‘a long dispute’ during which most speakers seem to have supported Hoby. Procs. LP ii. 183. The Commons therefore recommitted the whole matter back to the same committee and reiterated their order that neither Hoby nor Borlase should sit for the time being. CJ ii. 67a-b.
It took events elsewhere to end this dispute. On 2 January the Dorset constituency of Corfe Castle, which was controlled by Borlase’s father-in-law, Sir John Bankes†, had chosen Borlase as their MP in a by-election. Three days later the Commons declared that Whitelocke’s election at Great Marlow was not to be questioned. CJ ii. 63a; Longleat, Whitelocke pprs. VIII, f. 78. Hoby served his term as sheriff and, rather than re-open the argument about whether a sheriff could sit as an MP, he avoided the Commons until after he ceased to hold that office. It would be wrong, however, to say that the dispute had been settled amicably. When Whitelocke returned to his house at Fawley Court, six miles to the west of the town, during the recess in the autumn of 1641, his ‘friends’ from Great Marlow visited him to show ‘many testimonies of kindness and respect to him’. He realised that some of his other visitors had been offended by his election at Great Marlow, but ‘he took no notice nor omitted usual civilities to them’. Whitelocke, Diary, 128.
As a small, unincorporated borough, Great Marlow was an obvious choice among the Buckinghamshire constituency to be deprived of its right to elect MPs under the 1653 Instrument of Government. In the absence of any direct representation, the town continued to use Whitelocke as if he was still their MP – they regularly lobbied him concerning their rating dispute over the costs for the repair of the local bridge over the Thames and in 1655 Lord Paget and Sir John Borlase turned to him in an attempt to block the appointment of the new local minister, Daniel Sutton, favoured by Thomas Scot I*. Whitelocke, Diary, 396, 403, 407, 412, 459, 476.
The restoration of the old franchises for the elections to the 1659 Parliament gave back to Great Marlow both its seats. What followed contained some faint echoes of the battles of 1640. This time Borlase decided not to stand, but the family interest was still represented in the person of his younger brother, William Borlase*. Hoby again put himself forward. The possibility of another Borlase-Hoby-Whitelocke contest was only narrowly avoided. Whitelocke wrote to the town recommending one of his sons for the seat, but on 2 January 1659 he received a reply informing him that the letter had arrived after Hoby and Borlase had been chosen. Whitelocke, Diary, 504. Whitelocke accepted this.
Perhaps mindful that a repeat of 1640 should be avoided at all costs, this result was repeated in 1660 and 1661. Other members of the two families regularly represented the town later in the century. The second election of 1679 saw Hoby’s son, Thomas†, disputing the return of Humphrey Winch†, who had stood in alliance with William Borlase’s whig son, John†, and, as in 1640, the argument revolved around the extent of the franchise. In a reverse of the Hoby-Borlase positions of 1640, Thomas Hoby persuaded the Commons to limit it only to those paying scot and lot.
