The predominant interest in Hertfordshire belonged to the 2nd earl of Salisbury (William Cecil*), of whom Edward Hyde* would later recall that ‘no man [was] so great a tyrant in his country, or was less swayed by any motives of justice or honour’. Clarendon, Hist. ii. 543. A sense of the extent of Salisbury’s influence is conveniently provided by the lists which his officials began to draw up to this end in late January 1640, when it was already apparent that the king would soon call a new Parliament. In Hertford they found that there were 44 freeholders who were Cecil tenants resident ‘in or near’ the town, that a further 35 were resident elsewhere and that 32 others would be ‘not useful’. There were also 156 Cecil tenants at Little Hadham, Broxborne, Clothall and Hatfield, of whom 72 seem to have been thought to be eligible to vote or perhaps even likely to vote according to Salisbury’s wishes. The officials may also have hoped to get the support of up to 18 inhabitants of Hatfield who were not the earl’s tenants. Hatfield House, Box E/3, unfol. Where was some doubt as to a tenant’s eligibility to vote, the compilers of the lists tended to err on the side of caution. Hirst, Representative of the People?, 33, 36-7. Even so, these numbers were not sufficient to allow Salisbury to dictate the outcome of the forthcoming county election, but they were probably enough to give him the largest bloc of voters of any local landowner.
The poll at Hertford probably opened on 11 March 1640, as then and on the two following days the Cecils entertained in the town on a lavish scale. The accounts of Salisbury’s receiver-general, Roger Kirkham*, show that over those three days 972 voters were treated at several of the local inns, including the George, the King’s Head and the Falcon. In all, this cost the earl £350 3s 2d. Hatfield House, Accts. 157/3, f. 232v; CFEP Accts. 37/1, f. 2v. The mood of those voters was expressed in the petition which circulated among them condemning the enforcement of the recent religious innovations, the church courts, purveyance, monopolies and Ship Money. Procs. Short Parliament, 277-8. At the close of polling on 14 March Sir William Lytton*, a prominent Ship-Money resister, was re-elected, most probably as Salisbury’s preferred candidate. He was joined by the wealthy but inexperienced Arthur Capell*. C219/42, pt.1B, no. 122. The vast sums expended by Salisbury suggest that there must have been a contest. An obvious third candidate would have been Sir Thomas Dacres*, the other former MP from the 1628 Parliament.
Discontent continued in Hertfordshire during the summer over the issue of pressing the trained bands for service outside the county. Hatfield House, CP 131/112-19. That September another Hertfordshire petition of grievances was carried to the king at York by Lytton and Capell. Add. 11045, f. 121v; Autobiography and Corresp. of Sir Simonds D’Ewes ed. J.O. Halliwell (1845), ii. 242. They were then re-elected on 22 October at Hertford Castle to what would become the Long Parliament. C219/43, pt. 2, no. 218.
Capell’s elevation to the peerage on 5 August 1641 necessitated a by-election. The new writ was moved just two days later. CJ ii. 244a. The poll took place on 26 August, possibly at St Albans. Keeler, Long Parl. 51n. With Capell no longer a rival, Dacres regained the seat he had occupied twice before. C219/43, pt. 2, no. 220. There was presumably a contest, as on 30 August the result was queried in the Commons. Procs. LP vi. 610. Oliver Cromwell* tried without success to raise the matter again on 27 October after the recess. D’Ewes (C), 42.
A petition from the county demanding the exclusion of bishops and Catholic peers from the House of Lords was well-received when it was presented to the Commons by Lytton on 25 January 1642, while a rival petition, raised in competition to it, was denounced by Dacres as ‘false and scandalous’. PJ i. 160-1. The county was quick to support Parliament, but in August 1643 Dacres and Edward Wingate* told the Commons that they did not think that ‘ninety of a hundred’ of the inhabitants would take the vow and covenant imposed in the aftermath of Edmund Waller’s* plot, despite being ‘for the most part very honest men who had liberally contributed to the Parliament’. Harl. 165, f. 180. A sense that Hertfordshire was being asked to take on more than its fair share of the burdens of war sharpened opinion there as the war progressed. It certainly saw more of the organization and movement of the army than any other Eastern Association county. In November 1644 its standing committee appealed to Parliament for relief, arguing that, ‘The county is no way able to bear such charge they are now under, it having cost them £3,800 a month the last year, besides the free quarter, the excise, the 5th and 20th part’. HMC Portland, i. 195-6. As supporters of peace with the king, both knights of the shire were excluded from Parliament in the purge of December 1648. Lytton was imprisoned but quickly released, while Dacres was barred from entering the House on 8 December. Underdown, Pride’s Purge, 152, 379; Mems. of the Great Civil War ed. Cary, ii. 74-5; CJ vi. 94b.
For the 1653 Nominated Parliament, the council of officers chose Henry Lawrence I* and William Reeve* as the two MPs to represent Hertfordshire. Originally from Huntingdonshire, Lawrence was a newcomer to the county, as he had only lived there since purchasing an estate at Stanstead St Margaret two years earlier. VCH Herts. iii. 474. But he had experience in Parliament, having been a recruiter MP, and he was close to Cromwell, his former tenant. Reeve was a much more obscure figure – probably the son of a bricklayer from Wigginton, and a captain under Sir John Wittewronge* during the civil war.
The 1653 Instrument of Government allocated five county seats to Hertfordshire. Given that the parliamentary boroughs of Hertford and St Albans lost a seat each, this amounted to a gain of one seat for the county overall. At the general election of 1654 five candidates – Lawrence, Salisbury, Sir Richard Lucy*, Sir John Wittewronge and Sir John Reade – are known to have combined together. A set of accounts kept by Wittewronge reveal that over two days, 12 and 13 July, they lavishly treated their supporters in the various hostelries of Hertford. Thus, on the first day they spent £28 9s 6d entertaining 295 men at 18 inns, while the next day they spent £13 4s 6d entertaining 134 men at 10 inns. Not included in those sums were the three hogsheads of sack, one hogshead of French wine and 29 barrels of beer they also supplied. Other expenses included bread, tobacco (with pipes also provided) and sugar. The total cost came to £212 6s 6d, which three of the candidates, one of whom was Wittewronge, split between them. Herts. RO, DE/Lw/Z9.
The coherence of this group is open to question. As president of the council of state, Lawrence may have attracted support from those who wanted to be seen to be doing a favour to a newly powerful man. Wittewronge, in contrast, was a sceptic about much that the protectorate represented and, as an MP in this Parliament, worked hard to undermine the Instrument of Government. Salisbury and his crony Lucy seem to have accepted the protectorate without ever becoming enthusiasts for it. This may thus have been less a group with a specific platform and more a convenient alliance between Salisbury and some of his friends, although it did not serve to settle the result. Lawrence, Salisbury, Lucy and Wittewronge were indeed elected. C219/44, Herts. indenture, 12 July 1654. The church bells at Hatfield were rung to celebrate Salisbury’s success. Hatfield House, CFEP Box M/4, unfol. Less fortunate was Reade, owner of Brocket Hall, who failed to get the fifth place. His personal life may well have counted against him as he was openly unfaithful to his wife. The Impact of the First Civil War on Herts. ed. A. Thomson (Herts. Rec. Soc. xxiii.), 228. The successful fifth candidate, Thomas Niccolls*, was not perhaps the most obvious choice. Having been forced to flee his native Shrewsbury during the civil war, he had taken refuge with his cousin, Isaac Puller*, in Hertford and become one of the more zealous members of the county standing committee. Niccolls was probably viewed as a substitute for Puller, who was instead elected for Hertford.
In 1656 it might have been expected that William Packer*, the deputy major-general for the county, would play a major part in the elections in Hertfordshire, with which, of the three counties under his control, he had the strongest existing links. Several years earlier he and several other army officers had been granted the former royal palace of Theobalds at Cheshunt in lieu of their arrears. VCH Herts. iii. 449. Since then they had established a flourishing Baptist community there. However, Packer’s lack of experience made him an ineffectual electoral manager and he seems to have had no influence on any of the Hertfordshire results. Lawrence meanwhile preferred to get elected at Colchester, while Niccolls may not have stood at all. The three other MPs of 1654, Salisbury, Lucy and Wittewronge, were re-elected. The two remaining seats were then taken by Sir John Gore of Sacombe, a relative newcomer to the county, and by Lytton’s son Rowland*, who, like his father, had kept his distance from the protectorate. The gentlemen of the county who signed the election indenture (which is by now very badly damaged) included Dacres. C219/45, pt. 2, Herts. indenture, [1654]. This time Wittewronge paid £90 11s to a Hertford innkeeper, William Norris, in order to regain his seat. Herts. RO, DE/Lw/F18, p. 169. Once again the bellringers of Hatfield rang the bells in celebration at the result. Hatfield House, CFEP Box M/6, unfol. All five Members were initially excluded from the House, but Salisbury and Lucy had been admitted by October. CJ vii. 425a, 443b, 445a; To all the Worthy Gentlemen ([1656], E.889.8).
In the election for the 1659 Parliament, when constituencies reverted to their traditional pattern, Wittewronge as sheriff was ineligible and Salisbury’s title may also have been considered a disqualifier, though he had not been summoned to the Other House. Wittewronge evidently approached (Sir) Harbottle Grimston* and suggested that he stand. Grimston, a prominent lawyer and experienced MP, who had been resident in the county since his purchase of Gorhambury six years earlier, was flattered but felt that his arrival in the county was still too recent.
I am but lately come into the country [county], my face known to very few, and I never yet did them any service to merit such an honour, and therefore dare not adventure so desperately the forfeiture of my discretion in running so precipitately upon such an act of presumption, knowing the county is so well furnished with eminent and able persons fit for the service and of whom they have had long experience. Herts. RO, DE/Lw/Z21/56.
The two names he specifically had in mind were Wittewronge and Lytton, although he immediately acknowledged that Wittewronge was ineligible. However, he assured Wittewronge that ‘had I a thousand voices, yourself and Mr Lytton should have them all’. Herts. RO, DE/Lw/Z21/56. Lytton was re-elected, together with Richard Goulston*, who had hitherto played little part in local politics. C219/47, Herts. indenture, [1658]. The poll probably took place on 27 December 1658, because on that day Wittewronge as sheriff spent £6 5s 6d of his own money on ‘the election at Hertford’. He later spent 16s submitting the election returns. Herts. RO, DE/Lw/F20, pp. 131, 135.
