Yorkshire

Until the re-organisation of local government in the 1970s, Yorkshire’s three main administrative units – the East, North and West Ridings – formed England’s largest county, covering about an eighth of the entire country. D. Hey, Yorks. from AD 1000 (1986), 1. Measuring about 80 miles across at its widest and 70 from north to south, Yorkshire was a region of great topographical diversity: from the Pennine hills and valleys (known as the Dales) of its western half, to the coastal flats of Holderness in the east; from the marshland that stretched south of the River Humber into Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire, to the plateau of the North York Moors that looked across the River Tees into County Durham. R. Blome, Britannia (1673), 248. Because of this great variety of landscape, Yorkshire was home to a wider range of farming practices than any other county in early Stuart England. Hey, Yorks. 139. Broadly speaking, however, Holderness and the lowland vales of York and Pickering were given over to tillage and livestock in about equal measure, the Wolds (uplands) in east Yorkshire largely to sheepwalks, and the Dales and Moors to the raising of cattle and sheep. The county’s manufacturing heartlands were in the West Riding. The Aire and Calder valleys in the southern Yorkshire Pennines sustained a thriving cloth industry, one of the greatest in England. Likewise, the Sheffield-Rotherham area was a leading centre for the smelting and working of iron. The Yorkshire parliamentarian and ‘recruiter’ MP Lionel Copley was one of the region’s first great ironmasters. Infra, ‘Lionel Copley’. But the most lucrative sector of the county’s economy, at least in terms of the fortunes it generated, was that of maritime commerce. The leading merchants of York, and particularly those of Hull like Sir John Lister* and Peregrine Pelham*, traded extensively with the continent, exporting cloth and lead and importing timber and grain from the Baltic, wine and oil from France and Spain and manufactured goods from Holland. Infra, ‘Hull’; ‘Sir John Lister’; ‘Peregrine Pelham’.

Yorkshire’s population at the end of the sixteenth century was probably in excess of 300,000 and rising, of which perhaps as many as 7,000 freeholders assembled (usually in York Castle) on election day to select two knights of the shire. Cliffe, Yorks. 2; HP Commons 1558-1603, HP Commons 1604-1629, ‘Yorkshire’. Under the 1653 Instrument of Government, Yorkshire was divided for electoral purposes into its three ridings – although what impact this re-organisation, or the £200 franchise rule, had on the overall size of the electorate in the 1654 and 1656 county elections is not clear.

In a county as large and diverse as Yorkshire, and one containing so many gentry (almost 700 by 1642), no one family could wield a preponderant influence in the way that, for example, the Percys did in Northumberland. Supra, ‘Northumberland’; Cliffe, Yorks. 5. Those seeking the honour of representing such a huge constituency needed to forge a coalition of their gentry friends and kinsmen if they were to mount a credible challenge, especially in the event of a contested election. One figure with an obvious advantage when it came to assembling or frustrating such electoral coalitions was the lord president of the council of the north (who was also, ex officio, Yorkshire’s lord lieutenant). HP Commons 1604-1629. Not only did the lord president occupy the most powerful crown office in northern England, he also had a professional administration at his disposal and could call on men of the calibre and experience of Sir John Melton* – the secretary of the council for much of the personal rule of Charles I. Infra, ‘Sir John Melton’.

Under the energetic leadership of the earl of Strafford (Sir Thomas Wentworth†), the council had more success in seating candidates in the borough elections to the Short Parliament than on any occasion since 1614. J.K. Gruenfelder, Influence in Early Stuart Elections 1604-1640 (Columbus, Ohio, 1981), 186. But what role, if any, the council played in the county election is impossible to determine. The event itself took place some time in March 1640 and saw the return of Henry Belasyse and Sir William Savile. Unfortunately, the election indenture has not survived. If due precedence was properly observed, the honour of claiming the senior seat would have gone to Belasyse, who was heir to a peer (Lord Fauconberg). Savile, however, as head of one of the most ancient houses in Yorkshire, had an exceedingly high opinion of his own ‘quality’. Moreover, his estate (the bulk of which lay in the clothing district of the West Riding) was worth well over £5,000 a year and dwarfed that of most other Yorkshire gentry. Infra, ‘Sir William Savile’; Cliffe, Yorks. 30-1. Belasyse’s income was more modest, although his family’s estates as a whole were worth perhaps as much as £4,000 a year. The Belasyses’ electoral power-base lay in the Vale of Pickering in the North Riding and among the county’s Catholic community, of which Lord Fauconberg was a leading member. Infra, ‘Henry Belasyse’.

The absence of a double return in the March 1640 election, or of contemporary references to a contest, strongly suggests that the successful candidates were returned without serious opposition. Indeed, the identity of the two men and their conduct at Westminster raises the possibility that their election represented a pre-arranged compromise between Straffordians and those less charitably disposed to the lord president and possibly to the government policies sometimes labelled ‘Thorough’ as well. Belasyse’s return as knight of the shire to the 1628 Parliament had been in partnership with Wentworth against the powerful interest of the Saviles of Howley. However, in the early 1630s he had publicly quarrelled with Wentworth and his friends, and it is not clear that the breach had been made up by 1640. Infra, ‘Henry Belasyse’. Savile, on the other hand, was Strafford’s nephew and erstwhile ward and should have been one of his staunchest supporters in the county. In practice, however, his inability to accept the authority of the vice-president of the council, Sir Edward Osborne*, had caused Strafford no small embarrassment during the 1630s. Infra, ‘Sir William Savile’. Osborne, for one, apparently took a jaundiced view of Savile’s return, remarking to Sir Thomas Danbie* that ‘one of the late elected knights hath laid too hard upon your stomach, which if he do, the safest course will be to spew him up, or purge him out backwards, lest he still prove too hard of digestion, for a surfeit of dumplings (especially fat ones) is dangerous’. N. Yorks. RO, ZS, Swinton estate mss, Danby fam. letters and pprs. (mic. 2087): Osborne to Danbie, 30 Mar. 1640. Given Osborne’s long-running quarrel with Savile and the fact that Danbie was a friend of the Belasyses, it seems likely that the ‘late elected knight’ in question was Savile rather than Belasyse. Nevertheless, there is some evidence to suggest that Savile’s candidacy had been endorsed by Strafford. It may be significant, for example, that Savile spoke at Westminster in support of the crown’s offer to relinquish Ship Money in return for 12 subsidies, whereas Belasyse and the Member for Beverley, Sir John Hotham, helped to scupper this deal by demanding that the crown also give up military charges. After the dissolution of the Short Parliament, moreover, Savile informed against Belasyse and Hotham to the privy council, very probably at Strafford’s behest. Infra, ‘Sir William Savile’. In the end, we can only conclude either that Strafford and the council of the north suffered an inexplicable loss of influence in the county election to the Short Parliament, or that at least one of the two candidates – and Savile seems by far the likelier – was returned with their blessing.

The king’s defeat in the second bishops’ war of 1640 all but destroyed Strafford’s electoral interest in Yorkshire – a fact illustrated more clearly in the borough elections (York, for example) than in the struggle that developed for the county seats. Within just two days of Charles summoning a new Parliament (24 Sept.), Savile’s friends were canvassing support in the Leeds area. W. Yorks. Archives (Bradford), SpSt/11/5/3/4; Cliffe, Yorks. 323. Doubtless to Strafford’s annoyance, his nephew had joined Yorkshire’s ‘disaffected’ gentry during the summer in petitioning against the local impact of the king’s Scottish war, and he obviously fancied his chances of re-election. Infra, ‘Sir William Savile’. But on this occasion he faced stiff competition from two of the summer’s leading petitioners, Belasyse and his friend and cousin 2nd Baron Fairfax (Sir Ferdinando Fairfax*). Fairfax’s father had represented Yorkshire twice in the 1620s and in 1627 had purchased the barony of Cameron, which being a Scottish title conferred no right to sit in the House of Lords. The family’s estates lay mainly around York, Knaresborough and in the Wharfe Valley in the Dales. That all three of the candidates had been involved in the Yorkshire petitioning campaign makes it far from clear that theirs was a straightforward struggle of ‘country party’ (Fairfax and Belasyse) versus Straffordians (Savile). Cliffe, Yorks. 324. Personal grievances aside, all three men had cooperated with the lord president and the crown during the 1630s. Indeed, although Fairfax (like Belasyse and Savile) had clearly opposed Strafford during the summer’s petitioning campaign, he and his family had been close friends and political allies of the lord president for a generation. Infra, ‘Sir Ferdinando Fairfax’. Furthermore, Belasyse was as unsympathetic towards further reformation in religion as Savile was and, like him, would side with the king in the civil war. Perhaps the most we can say is that Fairfax and Belasyse had come out more strongly and consistently against royal policies over the previous year than had Savile. But overall, it is hard not to conclude that the two parties were engaged primarily in a personal struggle for the honour of representing the county.

As the county electorate converged on York Castle early in October 1640, the king withdrew his army (which had assembled at York to fight the Scots) from the city in order to remove any imputation of undue royal influence over the proceedings. The election began on 4 October, and as Henry Clifford, 5th earl of Cumberland, reported, it was a protracted and hard-fought affair.

My Lord Fairfax [and] my cousin Belasyse stood together and Sir William Savile single a great while. But in the afternoon, when they came to the poll, finding most of his [Savile’s] voices would be cast either upon Fairfax or Belasyse, he cried up Sir Richard Hutton [of Hutton Pannell, his close friend]. The poll continued till near 6 o’clock at night, all which while [Fairfax and Belasyse]... carried it 5 for 1, but then the woeful sheriff [Sir Marmaduke Langdale] adjourned the county court to Pontefract [closer to Savile’s estate], alleging the work could not possibly be finished at York by reason of the court and camp, which was a mere plot aforehand, [and] which hath so discontented all my countrymen, as the next morning [5 Oct.] they went to the castle [York Castle] and polled out the rest and then brought our indenture to the sheriff to sign, who refused to seal it and went away with Sir William Savile to Pontefract immediately, whom I believe he hath chosen there. Add. 75354, f. 3: earl of Cumberland to Lady Dungarvon, 9 Oct. 1640.

But Langdale’s sharp practice was to no avail. Savile ‘fell short of the number’ even at Pontefract, and Langdale was forced to return the indenture drawn up at York by Fairfax’s and Belasyse’s party. C219/43/3/89; CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 158; HMC Var. viii. 54. Langdale’s support for Savile is perhaps further evidence that the election was not simply a contest between pro- and anti-Straffordians – for although Langdale was to become a royalist, he had been a leading opponent of crown policies during the personal rule. Cliffe, Yorks. 293, 311, 313, 315, 318, 320. The indenture, dated 5 October, was signed by about 150 Yorkshire gentry, including the future royalists Sir Henry Slingesby*, Robert Stryckland*, John Belasyse*, William Frankland* and John Mallory* and the future parliamentarians Sir Henry Cholmley*, Sir John Hotham, Sir Philip Stapilton*, Henry Arthington*, Francis Lascelles*, Thomas Mauleverer*, Luke Robinson*, John Wastell* and William White*. C219/43/3/89. The signatories came from all areas of the county. The only gentry group conspicuous by its absence was that of Strafford’s closest allies – gentlemen like Sir Thomas Danbie, Sir William Pennyman* and Sir George Wentworth II*. Despite his involvement in the Yorkshire petitioning campaign, Savile’s betrayal of Belasyse and Hotham after the Short Parliament had evidently compromised him in the eyes of all but Strafford’s staunchest supporters.

The civil war divided the county’s two MPs, with Fairfax taking command of Parliament’s northern army, while his long-time friend Belasyse joined the king’s party. Although Belasyse was disabled from sitting by the Commons on 6 September 1642, there was to be no Yorkshire recruiter election to replace him. CJ ii. 754b. Furthermore, Lord Fairfax’s seat was not filled following his death in March 1648; the House ordered on 16 March that a new election be held to replace both Fairfax and Belasyse but no writ was ever issued to this effect. CJ v. 500b. Consequently, the county was without formal representation from March 1648 until the dissolution of the Rump in April 1653. Perhaps the feeling at Westminster was that with 14 borough constituencies the county was sufficiently well represented in the Commons even without its knights of the shire. Most of the county itself was under royalist sway from the early months of the war, although Lord Fairfax and his son Sir Thomas Fairfax* held out gamely in the clothing towns of the West Riding until their crushing defeat at Adwalton Moor in June 1643. From then until the battle of Marston Moor the following year, the only secure parliamentarian enclave in the county was Hull.

Sir Thomas Fairfax’s appointment as commander of the New Model army early in 1645, and the Scottish occupation of Yorkshire during the mid-1640s, combined to render the county a political stronghold of the anti-Scottish, Independent faction at Westminster. D. Scott, ‘The ‘northern gentlemen’’, HJ xlii. 354-8. It is perhaps not surprising therefore that the majority of the eight men selected by Cromwell and the council of officers to represent the county in the Nominated Parliament were Independents of one hue or another. Only Thomas Dickinson and Edward Gill appear to have harboured Presbyterian sympathies, and Dickinson readily conformed under the Rump – indeed, he was eager to be regarded as a friend of the army. Infra, ‘Thomas Dickinson’; ‘Edward Gill’. In addition, over half of the men nominated (Coates, Eure, Gill, Lascelles, St Nicholas) had served either under the Fairfaxes or the commander of the Northern Brigade, Major-general John Lambert*, though only Captain Coates was still in full-time military employ. With the exception of Walter Strickland, the Long Parliament’s envoy to the United Provinces, all eight men were relatively obscure figures. Evidently most of the county’s parliamentarian grandees were either tainted by their association with the Rump, or in the case of Thomas (now 3rd Baron) Fairfax, John Bright* and Luke Robinson* refused to serve in the Assembly. Infra, ‘John Bright’; ‘Sir Thomas Fairfax’; ‘Luke Robinson’. Three of the county’s nominees – Coates, Dickinson and Gill – were among a group of 19 men who were apparently nominated at a later stage than the majority of MPs. Woolrych, Commonwealth to Protectorate, 138, 139. Coates and Gill were former officers under Bright, who may have recommended them in his place. Infra, ‘John Bright’. It is very likely, although impossible to prove, that Lambert played a major role in the selection of the county’s Members. Infra, ‘John Lambert’; Carroll, ‘Yorks.’, 330.

Yorkshire was awarded 14 parliamentary seats under the Instrument of Government – four each for the East and North Ridings and six for the West Riding. This generous allotment of seats not only reflected Yorkshire’s size – the West Riding alone was larger than any other English county – but also the fact that the new constitution’s architect and main promoter, Lambert, was himself a Yorkshireman. Similarly, the creation of new borough constituencies for Leeds and Halifax, together with the six West Riding seats, ensured that the distribution of parliamentary representation within the county shifted towards Lambert’s electoral power-base in the southern Yorkshire Pennines. Infra, ‘John Lambert’. Lambert’s pro-army interest in the region, which included his kinsman Martin Lister* and his political and military client Captain Adam Baynes*, certainly regarded the elections to the first protectoral Parliament in the summer of 1654 as a major opportunity to consolidate its gains both locally and nationally. Infra, ‘Adam Baynes’; ‘John Bright’; ‘Martin Lister’. Lambert’s electoral manager, Anthony Devereux, assisted by Lister and Baynes, was probably canvassing support for the major-general and his allies as early as May. Add. 21422, ff. 248, 317, 327, 328. The day before the election (11 July), Devereux was optimistic about Lister’s chances – as he informed Baynes:

As to Mr Martin Lister, he is in a fair way to be elected tomorrow at York, since it hath been in preparation a good while ... [and] if you had put in seasonably for ought I know you might have had your share of voice ... I shall be at York this night endeavouring the promoting of my lord’s [Lambert’s] first choice. Add. 21422, f. 342.

Lambert’s main electoral rival in 1654 was the leader of the West Riding Presbyterian interest Thomas Lord Fairfax. At least one of the men who stood in 1654, Henry Tempest*, was closely connected with Fairfax’s circle. Infra, ‘Henry Tempest’. Two other candidates, Edward Gill and another West Riding Presbyterian grandee, Sir Edward Rodes*, may also have been aligned with Fairfax. Infra, ‘Edward Gill’; Sir Edward Rodes’.

The West Riding election was held on 12 July 1654 at York Castle and saw Fairfax, Lambert, Tempest, Bright and Gill elected ‘without any dispute, most in general appearing for them’. However, according to another of Lambert’s electoral managers, Robert Morley, the final place became the subject of a fierce contest between Lister, Rodes and the Cromwellian judge and former Rumper Francis Thorpe*: ‘then mounts up Captain [John] Hewley* for Baron Thorpe, and we overpowered them clear. Then most of the multitude being against Mr Lister, part of Colonel Tempest and part of Captain Gill’s part closes with Sir Edward Rodes and mounted against us’. It was probably not only Lister’s radical politics that the voters found objectionable but also the fact that he was clearly riding on Lambert’s coat-tails. His own landed estate and electoral interest were negligible. The ‘shout’ between Lister’s and Rodes’s supporters continued for almost two hours, and in the end the sheriff was obliged to hold a poll. Morley thought that Lambert’s interest, which backed Lister, was ‘much wronged’ in the poll, ‘yet we over-numbered them 15 men’ – an extremely narrow margin of victory in an electorate probably hundreds strong. Had it not been for Morley’s enterprise in marshalling Lambert’s interest, then Lister would probably not have been elected at all. As Morley informed Baynes; ‘I carried in for Mr Lister 23 men, all old roundheads, and procured many in the castle garth, and for the honour I bear to my Lord Lambert and [his] lady and all their relation I would lay my life down for their good’. Infra, ‘Martin Lister’; Add. 21422, f. 347. Lambert’s support for religious toleration ensured that his electoral following included Catholics as well as radical Independents like Baynes. Thirteen individuals were named in the indenture, which also made reference to ‘divers other persons qualified and capable to elect Members to serve in Parliament’. C219/44/3, unfol.

Much less is known about the elections for the East and North Ridings in 1654. Like the West Riding election, they were held on 12 July, but it is not known where – the sheriff having been allowed to appoint deputies to act as returning officers, thereby obviating the need to stage proceedings at York Castle. CSP Dom. 1654, p. 208. In contrast to the West Riding elections, those for the East and North Ridings left no evidence of a contest. The East Riding voters returned the brothers and prominent Yorkshire Rumpers Sir William and Walter Strickland, the former Northern Brigade colonel Hugh Bethell and the East Riding gentleman Richard Robinson. The election of the Stricklands and Bethell is no surprise. The Stricklands owned many properties in the East and North Ridings and had figured prominently in local and national politics since the early 1640s. Infra, ‘Walter Strickland’; ‘Sir William Strickland’. Walter Strickland, moreover, was a member of the protectoral council. Likewise Bethell, despite his Presbyterian sympathies, had been one of the most trusted and popular officers in the Northern Brigade. Infra, ‘Hugh Bethell’. But the return of Robinson is something of a mystery. His estate was probably worth less than £500 a year, and he had been excluded from the East Riding bench in October 1653, along with several figures deemed politically suspect following the fall of the rump. Infra, ‘Richard Robinson’.

The voters in the North Riding returned George Lord Eure, Francis Lascelles, Thomas Harrison II and Major George Smithson. Neither Eure, Lascelles, nor Smithson were major landowners in the riding, and it therefore seems likely that they were elected on the strength of their godly reputations and their long record of military service in defence of the county – most notably against the invading Scots in 1651. Infra, ‘George Lord Eure’; ‘Francis Lascelles’; ‘George Smithson’. As serving or former officers in the Northern Association army and the Northern Brigade, they may also have enjoyed the backing of Lambert and the northern military establishment. Harrison, too, was a man of relatively modest estate. However, he was a friend of the Belasyses and Darcys, two of the most powerful families in the North Riding, and this was probably a major factor in his return. Infra, ‘Thomas Harrison II’. The wording of the election indentures for both ridings employed exactly the same formula – citing 12 voters by name ‘and divers other persons qualified and capable to elect Members to serve in Parliament’. C219/44/3, unfol. Overall, the protectoral authorities could have no major cause for complaint regarding the Members returned by the county’s voters in 1654. The only figure with the potential to do the government any real harm was Thomas Lord Fairfax, and whatever his attitude towards the Cromwellian regime at this stage he had too few friends at Westminster to pose a serious threat. Of the county and borough Members returned in 1654, only Sir Thomas Widdrington and Henry Tempest can be assigned to his camp with any certainty. Infra, ‘Henry Tempest’; ‘Sir Thomas Widdrington’.

The county elections to the second protectoral Parliament on 20 August 1656 were probably more fractious than those of 1654, but unfortunately have left less evidence. According to the brief account of the West Riding election given in Mercurius Politicus,

My Lord Lambert was agreed on by all parties and chosen first; but the rest had competitors and came to a poll, but carried it clear ... There stood also one Captain [William] Bradford, who appeared in the head of about 400 Quakers. They would not [attest] in reference to the value of their estates, neither would they shout and hold up their hats as others did, only held up their hands as their leader directed them. Mercurius Politicus no. 324 (21-8 Aug. 1656), 7191-2 (E.497.12).

The order in which the five successful candidates were returned after Major-general Lambert was apparently Francis Thorpe, Henry Tempest, John Stanhope, Henry Arthington and Edward Gill. Their ‘competitors’, besides Bradford, almost certainly included Martin Lister, for his kinsman, Thomas Belasyse*, 2nd Viscount Fauconberg, had been soliciting on his behalf since at least June. Notts. RO, DD/SR/212/36. Another of Lambert’s circle, Baynes, also stood, but like Bradford and Lister was defeated by the strength of ‘the combination at York [Castle]’ against Lambertonians and ‘swordsmen’. Add. 21424, f. 88. The most puzzling aspect of this election is why Lord Fairfax failed to stand again. Had he done so he would undoubtedly have secured a seat and probably challenged Lambert for the senior place. The strength of Fairfax’s electoral interest is underlined by the return of Tempest, Stanhope and Arthington, who were his close political allies and – in the case of Tempest and Arthington – his kinsmen. Infra, ‘Henry Arthington’; ‘John Stanhope’; ‘Henry Tempest’. Their popularity with the voters probably owed much to the Fairfax’s interest’s well-known opposition to the rule of the major-generals. Similarly, Francis Thorpe’s estrangement from the protectorate since 1654, for which he had forfeited his place as a baron of the exchequer, seems to have struck a chord with the electorate. Infra, ‘Francis Thorpe’. Gill, too, apparently had serious reservations at the direction in which protectoral policy was moving. Infra, ‘Edward Gill’. In fact, possibly the only reason why Lambert secured first spot was that the 400 Quakers marshalled by Captain Bradford – an officer in the regiment of Lambert’s deputy, Major-general Robert Lilburne* – almost certainly voted for him as the most sympathetic of the candidates to the cause of religious toleration.

In the 1656 election for the East Riding, the voters returned Sir William Strickland, the brothers and former Rumpers Henry and Richard Darley, and Hugh Bethell. Mercurius Politicus no. 324 (21-8 Aug. 1656), 7192. Strickland and Bethell were still well-disposed to the protectorate, but the Darley brothers were among its leading critics, and this evidently played well with the electorate. Infra, ‘Henry Darley’; ‘Richard Darley’. In the months before the elections they had been involved in clandestine meetings in London and in Yorkshire with Sir Henry Vane II*, Henry Neville* and other leading commonwealthsmen in an attempt to rally the voters against the protectorate under the slogan ‘no swordsmen, no decimators’ and no placemen. TSP v. 296. Of the three Yorkshire county constituencies it was only the North Riding that seems to have been attuned to the government’s electoral preferences in 1656. The voters there returned Major-general Robert Lilburne and three of the Yorkshire commissioners for securing the peace of the commonwealth – Eure, Luke Robinson and Lascelles. Lilburne’s sphere of influence as a major-general under Lambert covered all of Yorkshire and his native County Durham. However, his heaviest troop concentration was in the North Riding, which given his lack of proprietorial interest in the region was undoubtedly a major factor in securing his own election. Carroll, ‘Yorks.’, 352. And although Eure and Lascelles had proven electoral track-records, and Robinson was one of the North Riding’s most active magistrates, it is likely that they too benefitted from the strong military presence in the region. The North Riding indenture followed exactly the same formula as that of 1654 (the other two county indentures have not survived). C219/45/1, unfol.

The North Riding was the only Yorkshire county constituency in 1656 whose full electoral complement was deemed well-affected by the protectoral council. In the case of the East Riding, both Darleys were excluded, while Arthington, Stanhope, Tempest and Thorpe suffered the same fate for the West Riding. All six Members were hostile to the rule of the major-generals. But whereas the Darleys, and probably Thorpe too, aligned with the protectorate’s republican critics, Arthington, Stanhope and Tempest represented a more conservative strand of opposition to the protectorate. Indeed, Tempest was alleged to have declared during campaigning that ‘“we must have a king again in this land or else we never should have peace”’. Add. 21424, f. 65. It has been suggested that Arthington, Stanhope and Tempest were excluded because they were suspected (without justification) of complicity in the 1655 Yorkshire royalist uprising. Carroll, ‘Yorks.’, 362. But a more telling factor in their exclusion was probably the support they had given the ‘high kirk gang’ at Leeds in its local power-struggle against Baynes and others of Lambert’s interest. Supra, ‘Leeds’; infra, ‘Adam Baynes’; C. Egloff, ‘The search for a Cromwellian settlement’, PH xvii. 315. Of the eight Yorkshire Members who met with the council’s approval, only Lambert, Lilburne and Robinson would come out wholeheartedly in 1657 against the Remonstrance and the Humble Petition and Advice.

In the elections to Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament of 1659, Yorkshire reverted to its customary two seats and the traditional 40 shillings franchise. The county election, which took place on 30 December 1658, was a closely contested affair involving the experienced campaigners Fairfax, Lambert and Thorpe and the 1654 North Riding MP Thomas Harrison II. Notts. RO, DD/SR/221/96/4. Only Harrison appeared in person, standing as junior partner to Lord Fairfax. The other three candidates were represented by their proxies. Lord Fairfax’s uncle, Colonel Charles Fairfax, acted as proxy for his nephew, ‘against whom there was no dispute, but granted without polling’. Harrison, on the other hand, was able to muster only ‘a poor number of about 300, and the one half of them gained after he mounted his horse at the request of Colonel Fairfax’. In the event, Harrison was elected largely by default. Francis Thorpe apparently had ‘a general voice for him’, but his election manager John Hewley (who had performed the same office for Thorpe in 1654) had no horse and was therefore unable to manage his interest amongst the crowd. Lambert ‘had far more [that] appeared for him, and many more coming up out of the West Riding under Captain [Roger] Coates’s conduct’. However, ‘acclamation’ for him subsided after it was observed that there were Quakers among his supporters. This was despite the fact that on this occasion Friends ‘used all the postures of the honester sort, contrary to their use’ – a reference, perhaps, to the Quakers’ conduct in the 1656 West Riding election. When Coates polled for Lambert, he fell short of Harrison by at least 200 votes, and the sheriff duly returned Fairfax and Harrison. The election indenture has not survived.

In the aftermath of the Yorkshire election for Richard Cromwell’s Parliament there were complaints from several quarters that the whole affair had been rigged by the Fairfax interest. One of Lambert’s supporters alleged that Fairfax’s supporters had prevented news of the election date reaching areas beyond their influence (notably the East Riding), by which ‘unworthy design the country [was] cheated of their ancient and undoubted right, and only the day of election known to a few, otherwise Mr Harrison could not have been chosen for this county’. Add. 21427, f. 262. Similarly, a correspondent of the Yorkshire royalist Sir George Savile† (son of Sir William Savile) claimed that the sheriff’s failure to give proper notification of the election date had been highly resented by the county’s gentry, and particularly by John Dawnay†, who ‘would have come in [stood for election] but could not have any certainty of the day’. Notts. RO, DD/SR/221/96/4. That the sheriff, Barrington Bourchier†, was a nephew of Fairfax’s political ally Sir Henry Cholmley, lends substance to these allegations. The fall of the protectorate in April 1659 deprived the county of parliamentary representation until Fairfax and Dawnay were returned to the 1660 Convention.