Ill-served with roads, Hertford stood at the head of navigation of the River Lea and served as the administrative centre of a county rather lacking in natural boundaries. Having failed to return Members since the fourteenth century, its right to be represented in Parliament had been revived recently as 1624, mostly as a favour to the prince of Wales, who held the castle. The lease on the castle had since been sold to Sir William Cowper, the collector of the imposts for the port of London, most of whose other estates were located in Kent. Chauncy, Herts. i. 499. In practice, the dominant interest had been that of the high steward, the 2nd earl of Salisbury (William Cecil*). Calculations by his officials in January 1640 found that he had over 100 tenants in the town and they may have assumed that, of those, 79 would vote as Salisbury directed in the poll for the knights of the shire. Hatfield House, Box E/3, unfol. However, the franchise, differing in county and borough, meant that those figures do not translate directly into his interest for the borough election. But Salisbury’s influence was clearly considerable. The other powerful patron was Sir Thomas Fanshawe*. In 1626 and 1628 he too had got his favoured candidate elected, first his brother-in-law, Sir Capell Bedell*, and then himself. The franchise was undefined, but before 1640 only the freemen had voted.
The Short Parliament election in 1640 saw the continued assertion of the Cecil and Fanshawe interests, with the election of Fanshawe with Salisbury’s eldest son, Viscount Cranborne (Charles Cecil*). However, they may have faced a challenge from a townsman, possibly Gabriel Barbor, an alderman and once one of the feoffees for impropriations (a puritan body suppressed by the government of Charles I for its activity acquiring livings in which to place sympathetic clergy), who had also stood against Fanshawe in 1628. He was among tenants in the town that Salisbury’s officials had decided would be ‘not useful’ in the county election. Hatfield House, Box E/3, unf. Later accounts suggested that this was the first occasion when the householders challenged the restriction of the franchise to the freemen. Chauncy, Herts. i. 496. The accounts of Salisbury’s receiver-general, Roger Kirkham*, reveal that Cranborne spent a total of £72 7s 2d on a variety of election expenses. The 217 voters at an election dinner hosted by him managed to consume a hogshead of sack, a hogshead of claret and four hogsheads of beer. Hatfield House, Accts. 157/3, f. 233; CFEP General 11/9; CFEP Accts. 37/1, f. 2v.
On 24 September 1640, within hours of the king’s decision to summon a new Parliament, Salisbury wrote from York to Kirkham with instructions to mobilize his electoral patronage in Hertfordshire. He wanted two of his sons, presumably Cranborne and the next eldest, Robert Cecil*, to be elected for the county’s two borough constituencies and needed to act swiftly in case he was distracted by his appointment as a commissioner to negotiate with the Scots. He therefore told Kirkham to ‘acquaint Mr Keeling and such others of the better sort of Hertford of my desire of the continuance of their respects to me and my son which I shall acknowledge with all thankfulness’. Hatfield House, CP 114/118. The man Kirkham was being asked to contact was either John Kelyng of Hertford, or his son, John Kelyng†, the future chief justice of king’s bench, who three years previously had succeeded his father as the corporation’s steward. HP Commons 1660-1690. Whichever it was, he had headed the list of Salisbury’s tenants in the town. Hatfield House, Box E/3, unfol. Unlike St Albans, Hertford was unable to assert its independence, with the result that Cranborne and Fanshawe were re-elected. C219/43, pt. 2, no. 222. This time Cranborne was not quite so lavish; although he again provided two hogsheads of wine, he economised with just three hogsheads of beer and overall he spent only £47, albeit entertaining 237 persons. Hatfield House, Accts. 157/3, f. 233; CFEP Accts. 37/1, f. 2v.
Fanshawe, whose royalist sympathies had become evident, was disabled on 7 September 1642 ‘for neglecting the service of the House’. CJ ii. 756a. His place was left vacant for the next three years, with the writ for a recruiter by-election to replace him not being ordered by the House until 3 September 1645. CJ iv. 262b-263a; Herts. RO, HRR 23/26. A fortnight later William Leman* was chosen as the new Member. C219/43, pt. 2, no. 221; Herts. RO, HRR 23/28. Leman lived at Northaw, seven miles to the south of the town, and until earlier that year he had been joint treasurer of the Eastern Association, but his great wealth may have been his most obvious recommendation as, on being elected, he showed his gratitude by giving £100 to the corporation to assist in discharging its debts. Chauncy, Herts. i. 522; Turnor, Hist. Hertford, 151. Salisbury seems to have remained on good terms with the corporation. In 1647 he presented them with a silver cup. L. Lewitt and W.H. St John Hope, The Corporation Plate and Insignia of Office of the Cities and Towns of Eng. and Wales (1895), i. 303. A more open critic of the army than his father, Cranborne was excluded from the Commons by the purge in December 1648 and, again in contrast to his father, he did not sit in the Rump.
Under the 1653 Instrument of Government the town lost one of its parliamentary seats. In both 1654 and 1656 Isaac Puller*, a senior member of the corporation, took that single remaining seat. The son-in-law and close political ally of Barbor, during the civil war he had been the permanent Hertfordshire representative on the committee of the Eastern Association at Cambridge and he had since served as the mayor of Hertford. The election in 1656 is known to have been held on 6 August. Herts. RO, HBR 23/30.
With the restoration of the old constituencies in 1659 Hertford again sent two Members. Puller was re-elected without much fuss, but there was a heated contest for second place between William Packer* and James Cowper*. It is possible that Packer was originally from the area, but his local standing mostly arose from his ownership, in conjunction with several other army veterans, of the former royal palace of Theobalds. He had also been the local deputy major-general in 1656, although it is doubtful that this counted for much in 1659. Cowper, in contrast, had no political baggage at all. A younger son of Sir William Cowper, he seems to have avoided any direct involvement in the civil war and had since concentrated on becoming a London property developer. He may have sought a seat in Parliament mainly to protect his commercial interests against any legislation to restrict the construction of new buildings in the capital. Packer and Cowper thus both had relatively weak links to the town. The election would turn on whether those links were so weak as to disqualify either or both of them.
The poll took place on 8 January 1659. Although the figures were later disputed, Cowper apparently received 140 votes, while Packer polled only 120. Burton’s Diary, iv. 251, 253. But doubts were raised as to whether Cowper, who was neither resident in the town nor a freeman of the corporation, was qualified to be elected – doubts shared by the steward, Edward Turnor*, whom the corporation would probably have preferred as their MP had he not already been elected for Essex. As he later explained to the Commons, he advised the mayor, William Turner, to make a special return of both indentures so that Parliament could have the final say. Turner refused and declared Packer elected. Burton’s Diary, iv. 252. An indenture to that effect was submitted in the names of Turner as mayor, three of the chief burgesses, eight of the assistants and three of the townsmen, including Puller’s brother-in-law, Gabriel Barbor junior. Herts. RO, HBR 23/29.
Cowper petitioned against Packer’s election, although the committee of privileges did not begin to consider that petition until 10 March, six weeks after this Parliament had assembled. Burton’s Diary, iv. 119. The matter briefly took on a greater urgency the following day when Griffith Bodurda* alluded to it in debate. Provocatively, he argued that if Packer were allowed to continue sitting while his election was under investigation, the same indulgence might be extended to the Scottish and Irish MPs whose right to sit was being contested. Since the Hertford case turned on the issue of residency, part of Bodurda’s argument – which might also be deployed in relation to the Scottish and Irish representatives – may have been that other Members who did not live in their constituencies would also be obliged to withdraw when they came to debate Packer’s election. Bodurda mentioned that Packer’s lawyer, the future earl of Nottingham, Heneage Finch†, was ready to present the case on his behalf, but while some, including Sir Walter Erle*, appeared sympathetic to Bodurda, it seems that the comparison he was trying to make was generally deemed irrelevant and the House soon moved on, resuming its debate on the status of Scottish and Irish colleagues. Burton’s Diary, iv. 120-2.
The next day the committee of privileges agreed to recommend that Packer’s election be overturned. According to Thomas Burton* (who was not present), the decision ‘went against Packer by almost 20 votes’. Burton’s Diary, iv. 148. On 18 March, with the House still debating the Scottish and Irish MPs, Bordurda’s argument about Packer was again mentioned, although John Bulkeley* did so in order to ridicule it. Burton’s Diary, iv. 176. The report from the committee of privileges on the Hertford election was finally considered by the Commons on 24 March after Bodurda, who favoured Cowper, moved that it be heard. ‘Mr Weaver’ (probably John Weaver*) gave up an attempt to force a division to block this once he realised that he and those who opposed Bodurda’s motion would be those who would have to leave the chamber. Burton’s Diary, iv. 249-50. Thomas Waller* then reported that Puller’s election was not disputed and that Cowper had received more votes than Packer but that, unlike Packer, he was not resident in the town. The committee of privileges had nevertheless found for Cowper. CJ vii. 619b; Burton’s Diary, iv. 250. Packer responded – unconvincingly – by disputing the relevance of the strongest precedent against him, that relating to the election of Richard Catelyn* for Norwich in 1640. He also asserted that, contrary to the claim that whereas Cowper had received 140, he had only got 120, the true figures had been 107 for himself and 106 for Cowper. Burton’s Diary, iv. 250-1.
Among varied opinions expressed by other MPs, Andrew Broughton* praised Packer’s good character, while the burgess for St Albans, Alban Coxe*, maintained that he had heard that Packer had won a majority of the votes. Bodurda retorted that the committee for privileges had already heard evidence that Packer had been made free of the town only the day before the election, that he had taken a house there only a month before and that the mayor had refused a request that Cowper be admitted as a freeman. When Bodurda mentioned that Turnor had been present at the poll, the Essex MP rose to confirm that Cowper had received more votes and that he himself had advised the mayor not only of the statutory residency requirement (1 Hen. V, c. 1), but also to return two indentures in case the Commons might be willing to grant an exception. However, the next speaker, Richard Knightley, although not a professional lawyer, contradicted Turnor’s interpretation of the 1413 statute. MPs were still debating the case when our sole source, Thomas Burton, left the Chamber and they apparently continued for a further two hours. Burton’s Diary, iv. 251-3. In the end the Commons resolved that Cowper’s election had been valid. CJ vii. 619b.
Mayor Turner was then ordered to attend on the House so that the indentures could be amended. On 29 March he appeared at the bar of the Commons with the deputy to the clerk of the commonwealth in chancery and the necessary changes were made. CJ vii. 619b, 621b; Burton’s Diary, iv. 299. Both halves of the indenture survive, although the one retained by the chancery officials is now largely illegible. C219/47, Hertford [1659]. The other half, which was returned to the corporation, has been preserved in much better condition. While the change was very neatly done, there is no doubt that Cowper’s name is indeed an insertion written over an erasure. Herts. RO, HBR 23/29. Cowper played no obvious part in this Parliament during the few remaining weeks before the dissolution.
