Bossiney, on the north coast of Cornwall, was a tiny settlement established as a parliamentary borough by the duchy of Cornwall in the mid-sixteenth century. The borough was not incorporated until 1685, and in the interim it was controlled by the court leet, with a ‘mayor’ presiding. Maclean, Trigg Minor, iii. 185, 205-9, The franchise was never entirely settled, and the electorate was variously made up of those who owned property in the parish (the ‘burgesses’), those paying scot and lot, or the inhabitants of the parish of Tintagel in general. This led to great confusion in the 1620s, when the number of voters varied between 6 and 18. The instability of Bossiney and its electoral practices made it an obvious target for outside interests, but there was no long-term patron. The dominant local family, the Henders, had died out in the male line in 1611, although one son-in-law, Richard 1st Baron Robartes, continued to exercise some influence in the 1620s. Another local gentleman, John Wood†, was also an important figure until his death in 1623, and thereafter Bossiney was open to nominations from the Prideaux of Place and the duchy of Cornwall interest, which resurfaced briefly in the mid-1620s. HP Commons 1604-1629.
The instability of both franchise and patronage led to great uncertainty in 1640. The Short Parliament return, on 20 March, was reasonably uncontroversial. As with other Cornish boroughs, Bossiney ignored the official duchy of Cornwall nominee, the carpet-bagger William Twisden. DCO, ‘letters and warrants, 1639-43’, f. 44v. Instead the mayor, William Coryton*, who was a client of the warden of the stannaries, Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke, supervised the election of two Cornish gentlemen, Anthony Nicoll and Edward Herle. C219/42/31-2. In the autumn, however, Coryton courted controversy by forcing Pembroke’s candidates through an irregular election. He rejected an offer by Sir Bevill Grenvile*, who had recently purchased property in the borough, to divide the seats between them, insisting instead that Pembroke should nominate both. As Grenvile later wrote to Coryton, ‘I was willing to join with you, as I signified by my letter and by my servants that spoke with you before the election, whereby my lord might have been sure to have one; which you refused, whereby he may miss both, which I am sorry for’. R. Granville, The Hist. of the Granville Family (Exeter, 1895), 233. Coryton had then taken the writ and held what amounted to a private election, ‘calling none but those which were at his disposition’, but this was challenged by other potential voters, who held their own contest. Granville, Granville Family, 233-4. According to Grenvile, ‘the inhabitants aggrieved at a course that was held wherein nine or ten did take upon them to be the only choosers of the burgesses, whereas they conceived that the rest had as much right to do it as they’. Granville Family, 233-4. Yet the disenfranchised inhabitants were probably not acting on their own behalf, but rather being guided by another patron intent on fielding his own candidates – John 2nd Baron Robartes. Grenvile’s part in all this was not entirely straightforward, either, as he later claimed that Robartes, whose influence was ‘powerful there’, would ‘have carried both against Mr Coryton if I had not interposed’, and he put up a rival contender of his own. Granville Family, 233-4.
The result of this was the return of five candidates. The court candidates were Pembroke’s kinsman, Sir Charles Herbert – who was also the candidate of the duchy – and probably Thomas Bond, a Wiltshire man who was receiver of the duchy of Lancaster lands in the south of England. DCO, ‘letters and warrants, 1639-43’, f. 67. Grenvile’s man was another courtier, Sir Ralph Sydenham, who was also his creditor. Granville Family, 231. Grenvile told Sydenham that he had also gained the support of Robartes, but this seems unlikely; rather, Robartes’s candidates were the Ulster Presbyterian, Sir John Clotworthy, and probably Sir Christopher Yelverton. Granville Family, 234; C219/43/9. The Commons took a dim view of the chaos at Bossiney. On 14 November John Maynard reported from the committee of privileges that two sets of indentures had been returned, one from Coryton as mayor, the other ‘returned promiscuously’; and although the committee considered Herbert’s election to be valid (perhaps in deference to Pembroke), the Commons voted that the Bossiney election should be totally annulled, and Coryton’s dealings investigated. CJ ii. 29a-b. On 7 December Sir Geoffrey Palmer reported that the Bossiney return was ‘made in a chamber’ by Coryton, and thus invalid, and the House voted that a writ be issued for a new election, to be held ‘by the burgesses without Mr Mayor’s presence’. D’Ewes (N), 118; Procs. LP i. 483-4, 497; CJ ii. 46b, 47a.
The new elections were held on 22 December 1640, with the deputy mayor, John Taylor, heading the borough signatories. C219/43/12-14. The result was further confusion, perhaps owing to the inexperience of Taylor, and his illiteracy (he signed his name with a mark). C219/42/31. On this occasion, there were three MPs returned – Yelverton, Sydenham and Bond – each with six votes. Yelverton’s indenture arrived at Westminster first and was filed, followed by the other two. None of the indentures was obviously irregular, so the matter was referred to the committee of privileges, and Sydenham and Bond were not allowed to take their seats. Procs. LP ii. 453; C219/43/12, 14. On 12 January 1641 John Glynne moved that Yelverton should also be suspended, as ‘two others were elected at the same time and had equal voices with him, who did forbear the House’. After a lengthy debate, Yelverton was instructed to withdraw. D’Ewes (N), 242. On 15 January Yelverton’s position was again discussed, and ‘divers spoke effectually for it, that he might at least sit till the question were determined one way or another’, but the majority voted that he should not attend until the committee had reported. Procs. LP ii. 199; CJ ii. 68a. On 15 February, when the report was made, John Pym intervened, moving that Coryton ‘might have no hand in this new election’, but he was opposed by other MPs who saw this as setting a bad precedent, and it was agreed that at least one week’s notice should be given to the voters. D’Ewes (N), 362; Procs. LP ii. 451; CJ ii. 86a. The new election was held by the end of February, and Yelverton was returned alongside Sydenham, in what was perhaps a compromise between the interests of Robartes and Grenvile.
Sydenham was disabled from sitting as a royalist in September 1642, but he was not replaced as Bossiney’s MP until the first half of 1647. On 22 March 1647, or possibly 10 April, a writ for a new election was issued, and at some point that spring the borough returned Lionel Copley, a prominent Presbyterian who probably benefited from the patronage of Anthony Nicoll and Lord Robartes. C231/6, p. 85. Copley was ‘received into the House’ on 25 May’. Perfect Occurrences no. 21 (21-28 May 1647), 136 (E.390.7). At Pride’s Purge in December 1648 Yelverton was secluded, Copley was imprisoned, and Bossiney was effectively disenfranchised for the remainder of the Long Parliament. Under the Instrument of Government, the borough lost its right to elect MPs during the first two protectorate Parliaments. The Robartes family remained the dominant landed interest during this period, but the manor of Tintagel was acquired by a republican, Colonel Robert Bennett*, in 1654, giving him some influence over the borough. Coate, Cornw. 274. The elections for Richard Cromwell’s* Parliament, held on 11 January 1659, saw the return of the veteran Presbyterian, Anthony Nicoll, and Samuel Trelawny of Plymouth, probably on the Robartes ticket. C219/46/6. With the death of Nicoll in February, a new election was held in March, and this saw a return to factionalism, with two returns being sent to Westminster. The first, dated 11 March, and signed by the sheriff and the mayor and other burgesses, elected Thomas Povey, a London merchant with connections with the Buller family. The second, of 14 March, was subscribed only by burgesses and residents, without official approval, and returned the Cromwellian colonel, John Mills (or Mill), perhaps with the backing of Robert Bennett. Firth and Davies, Regimental Hist. i. 382. On 8 April the committee of privileges reported to the Commons on this case, and Povey’s election was confirmed. CJ vii. 631b. After the Restoration, Bossiney was under the control of the Robartes family, and returned Presbyterians in the elections to the Convention in April 1660 and the Cavalier Parliament of 1661. HP Commons 1660-1690.
